Re: [SRU] non-free/clustalw and non-free/clustalx relicensed to LGPL-3+.
Le Sat, Jul 16, 2011 at 11:06:08PM +0200, Philipp Kern a écrit :
> On Thu, Apr 07, 2011 at 10:33:06AM +0900, Charles Plessy wrote:
> > I understand your decision for clustalx. I think that there would still be a
> > benefit to have clustalw in main for Squeeze, in particular for the generation
> > of entirely Free Squeeze derivatives for science. While we offer a large number
> > of alternatives, Clustal W is the reference in its field.
>
> Would it make sense to "just" offer a backport of the current version
> through backports.d.o instead?
Technically, both options (and other solutions like apt-pinning) have pros and
cons, but the issue is not technical.
Clustal W 2.1 is basically the relicensed version of 2.0.12. Other changes are
bug fixes and autogenerated files. By replacing the clustalw package in
Squeeze, we would reduce the quantity for non-free software distributed by
Debian, and make it easier for our users to install Clustal W, which would be a
nice way to thank its developers for having freed their software.
This said, I have uploaded clustalw and clustalx to backports.debian.org…
Have a nice day,
--
Charles Plessy
Tsurumi, Kanagawa, Japan
Reply to: