Re: Please consider free license for segemehl
Hi again,
I'd like to refresh my question about a free license for segemehl.
While the current release cycle for Debian 9 Stretch is closed it might
be interesting to integrate segemehl into the next stable Debian
release. I guess you remember the well thought arguments from other
scientists for free source code but if you want I could assemble these
again for your kind reconsidering.
Kind regards
Andreas.
On Wed, Aug 10, 2016 at 05:24:19PM +0200, Andreas Tille wrote:
> Hi,
>
> my mail might have been lost over holidays. It would be nice to get at
> least some response.
>
> Thanks
>
> Andreas.
>
> On Wed, Jul 13, 2016 at 08:47:44AM +0200, Andreas Tille wrote:
> > Hi again,
> >
> > I have not yet received any response since three weeks. I wonder
> > whether I was using a proper address. It would be great if you could
> > comment on the license issue and I wonder whether the technical hints
> > I have given were helpful.
> >
> > Kind regards
> >
> > Andreas.
> >
> > On Mon, Jun 20, 2016 at 02:21:38PM +0200, Andreas Tille wrote:
> > > Hello,
> > >
> > > I'm writing you on behalf of the Debian Med team which is a group inside
> > > Debian with the objective to package free software in the field of
> > > medicine and biology for official Debian. We have assembled several
> > > known tools which you can see on our so called biology task page[1].
> > > Also Segemehl will show up on this page in the "Packaging has started
> > > and developers might try the packaging code in VCS" section after about
> > > 24 hours.
> > >
> > > Since I've got a request from my colleagues to install segemehl I also
> > > intend to package this for Debian. Unfortunately the licensing
> > > information at the website and inside the code is quite sparse. The
> > > only hint I've found is if I call the executables it prints:
> > >
> > > SEGEMEHL is free software for non-commercial use
> > > (C) 2008 Bioinformatik Leipzig
> > >
> > > >From a Debian point of view this is non-free since it puts a restriction
> > > on the usage of the software. I wonder whether you might consider some
> > > free license like GPL, BSD or similar.
> > >
> > > Since I had a look onto the source archive I'd like to give some
> > > additional hints:
> > >
> > > 1. The archive contains a file
> > > segemehl_0_2_0/segemehl/cscope.out
> > > which most probably is not intended to be distributed.
> > > 2. It would be also great if you could strip backup files
> > > (*~) from the source tarball.
> > > 3. There is an object file
> > > segemehl_0_2_0/segemehl/libs/remapping.o
> > > which also made it probably unintended into the tarball
> > >
> > > Finally it looks unusual that you are distributing all files under
> > > segemehl_0_2_0/segemehl instead of simply putting everything into just
> > > segemehl_0_2_0.
> > >
> > > If you are interested I could provide manpages for the three executables
> > > created by the default build process. These will be part of the Debian
> > > package (provided you will consider a free license and we can distribute
> > > the package inside Debian).
> > >
> > > As a hint for a naming convention: All three executables are ending
> > > with ".x" which is quite unusual. While it might be help against name
> > > space pollution specifically for such generic names as "lack" you might
> > > consider droping this extension in a next version.
> > >
> > > Kind regards
> > >
> > > Andreas.
> > >
> > > [1] https://blends.debian.org/med/tasks/bio
> > >
> > > --
> > > http://fam-tille.de
> > >
> > >
> >
> > --
> > http://fam-tille.de
> >
> >
>
> --
> http://fam-tille.de
>
>
--
http://fam-tille.de
Reply to: