Re: Is there template for letters about software without licence ?
Hi,
Thank you for your template ! Here is my customised version. I am
wondering wether it is better to write it with "I" or "we", as long as
there are at least two persons on this list who work on enriching debian
in free packages related to biolgy.
[begin email]
Dear <upstream author>:
We are working on creating a set of packages of free software related to
molecular and computational biology for the Debian GNU/Linux operating
system (web site is at www.debian.org). We would love to include a
Debian package of <software in question> so that it could be used by the
growing number of biologists who use Debian as a work platform.
Unfortunately, we could not find the licence of <software in question> in
its website nor in its sources. In the countries which have signed the
convention of Berne about copyright, a software without licence is by
default copyrighted, and its redistribution is not permitted as it is
not explicitely written.
We are therefore wondering if you would be willing to give a license to
<software in question>, which would allow us to redistribute it within
the Debian GNU/Linux operating system. To be integrated in Debian, a
software must be released under terms that are compatible with the
Debian Free Software Guidelines, available here:
http://www.debian.org/social_contract#guidelines
Debian ships software packages with many different licenses, so there is
no single Debian license. Some of the more common free software licenses
are the GNU GPL, the Library GPL, the revised BSD, Artistic,MIT and
Mozilla licenses. You might wish to read through a few of them,
available here: http://www.opensource.org/licenses/
Unless you have specific needs, we would strongly recommend that you
choose a widespread licence, as it facilitates the understanding of your
wills by the users. For free software, the GNU General Public Licence
(GPL) and the revised licence of the Berkley Software Distribution (BSD)
are very popular choices. Their main difference is that the GPL insists
for the derivative work to be free software as well, while the BSD
licence allows derivative works to be part of proprietary programs whose
source is not shipped with their binaries.
Importantly, none of these licences states restrictions about commercial
or non-commercial uses. Said differently, the software which is
available for free only for academics is not free software. While in
some cases, like collaborations with for-profit partners, such licences
can be relevant, we would like to discourage their use if there is no
economic rationale behind. In particular, our current effort is to
create a distribution of free software for biologists, from the
sequencing to the modelisation of interaction networks, and we would
like to avoid to ship on the same media software with and without
restrictions on commercial use, in order to target the broadest public.
Finally, let us make it clear that we are not speaking on behalf of the
Debian Project. However, we would be very happy to be able to package
<software in question> for Debian along with the rest of the packages
related to molecular and computational biology that we are gathering.
Thank you for your consideration,
[end email]
> Remember to thank upstream profusely if they re-license under a
> DFSG-compatible license. Even if they refuse, thank them for their
> time and consideration of your request.
That makes a lot of sense, especially it they are likely to review your
papers or your grants later ;)
> You might also want to ask this on debian-legal, although they might
> not have comments specifically regarding academic software.
Actually, I found yesterday a page on the gnu website, with which I
share a lot of points of view.
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/university.html
Have a nice week-end,
PS : as I do not know how to configurate mutt so that it can swich the
default language of aspell (mine is french), typos may have escaped my
proofreading...
--
Charles Plessy
Wako, Saitama, Japan
Reply to: