<div dir="ltr">Hi Andreas, I thought I'd left the ball in your court....<div><br></div></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Thu, Dec 10, 2015 at 10:28 PM, Andreas Tille <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:andreas@an3as.eu" target="_blank">andreas@an3as.eu</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">Hi Jim,<br>
<br>
its a long time ago and I have not heard from you back then when we were<br>
discussing the license of BLAT.<br>
<br>
As you can read in the bug log of the Debian package of the BioConductor<br>
component rtracklayer here<br>
<br>
<a href="https://bugs.debian.org/807580" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://bugs.debian.org/807580</a><br>
<br>
this code is based upon code obtained from<br>
<br>
<a href="http://genome-source.cse.ucsc.edu/gitweb/?p=kent.git" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://genome-source.cse.ucsc.edu/gitweb/?p=kent.git</a><br>
<br>
and thus covered by your license that is not compatible with DFSG<br>
guidelines. It would be really great if we could refresh the past<br>
discussion to find a free license for this code. The alternative would<br>
be that we need to kick a chain of about 10 dependencies of BioConductor<br>
packages out of Debian.<br>
<br>
'm not sure whether I mentioned it before but we had a long standing<br>
discussion with Joe Felsenstein about PHYLIP and finally he confirmed<br>
that the gain he had over *years* was so small that the loss to get<br>
better distribution, cooperation and patches might outweight this by<br>
far. I wonder whether you might be interested in this kind of<br>
experiences - at least Joe has decided in 2014 for a BSD-2-clause<br>
license.<br>
<br>
Kind regards<br>
<br>
Andreas.<br>
<br>
On Thu, Mar 13, 2014 at 04:22:12PM -0700, Jim Kent wrote:<br>
> Hmm. The reason I'm comfortable having you redistribute it is that I know<br>
> you will put it in a section where it is clearly marked as license<br>
> required.<br>
><br>
> The tricky part is where re-redistribution comes in.<br>
><br>
> Perhaps in your files is a license that has a word or two on this subject<br>
> already? If not then I must pause and think, and discuss with my people as<br>
> well.<br>
><br>
><br>
> On Thu, Mar 13, 2014 at 2:15 PM, Andreas Tille <<a href="mailto:tille@debian.org">tille@debian.org</a>> wrote:<br>
><br>
> > Hi Jim,<br>
> ><br>
> > On Thu, Mar 13, 2014 at 01:57:39PM -0700, Jim Kent wrote:<br>
> > > It is a short license. It does not forbid modification, and we got no<br>
> > > problem with that. We do want to _check_ on redistribution to make sure<br>
> > > that it is clear we reserve commercial licensing rights.<br>
> > ><br>
> > > Hopefully this clears things up, but if not let me know, and we can add a<br>
> > > few more words to the license if you like.<br>
> ><br>
> > I think this is the problematic part: How do you practically want to<br>
> > check the redistribution via Debian? Even if the non-free section is<br>
> > not official Debian the package would available from the Debian mirrors<br>
> > and from several potential derivatives. Surely it is no dedicated<br>
> > distribution of BLAT but the license is not totally clear whether we are<br>
> > allowed to do what we intend to do (distributing BLAT in source and<br>
> > binary form) even if it is the users obligation to read the license text<br>
> > and check whether he is allowed to use the program.<br>
> ><br>
> > Kind regards<br>
> ><br>
> > Andreas.<br>
> ><br>
> > > On Thu, Mar 13, 2014 at 1:12 PM, Andreas Tille <<a href="mailto:tille@debian.org">tille@debian.org</a>> wrote:<br>
> > ><br>
> > > > Hi Jim,<br>
> > > ><br>
> > > > could you please give some clarification about the BLAT license. Our<br>
> > > > ftpmaster interprets it as not distributable. We are aware that it<br>
> > > > needs to go into the non-free section but it would be a shame if it<br>
> > > > could not even go there.<br>
> > > ><br>
> > > > Kind regards<br>
> > > ><br>
> > > > Andreas.<br>
> > > ><br>
> > > > On Thu, Mar 13, 2014 at 08:01:50PM +0100, Thorsten Alteholz wrote:<br>
> > > > > Hi,<br>
> > > > ><br>
> > > > > the license of BLAT is a bit strange. It just allows the use of the<br>
> > > > > software but no modification and no distribution. Did I miss<br>
> > > > > anything?<br>
> > > > ><br>
> > > > > Thorsten<br>
> > > > ><br>
> > > ><br>
> > > > --<br>
> > > > <a href="http://fam-tille.de" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://fam-tille.de</a><br>
> > > ><br>
> ><br>
> > --<br>
> > <a href="http://fam-tille.de" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://fam-tille.de</a><br>
> ><br>
<br>
> _______________________________________________<br>
> Debian-med-packaging mailing list<br>
> <a href="mailto:Debian-med-packaging@lists.alioth.debian.org">Debian-med-packaging@lists.alioth.debian.org</a><br>
> <a href="http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/debian-med-packaging" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/debian-med-packaging</a><br>
<span class="HOEnZb"><font color="#888888"><br>
<br>
--<br>
<a href="http://fam-tille.de" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://fam-tille.de</a><br>
</font></span></blockquote></div><br></div>