[Debian-med-packaging] Bug#807580: Bug#807580: More licensing issues (Was: BLAT license)

[Michael Lawrence]

Are you guys saying that an R package that depends on another R
package is considered a derivative work? If so, there are probably an
enormous number of CRAN/Bioc packages in violation. My choice of
license for rtracklayer should not affect the

On Sat, Dec 19, 2015 at 9:07 PM, Charles Plessy <plessy at debian.org> wrote:
> Le Sat, Dec 19, 2015 at 08:47:42AM -0800, Jim Kent a écrit :
>> Sorry not to get back to you sooner.  I'm just getting a lot of
>> post-vacation mail pile up.
>>
>> A copyleft license sounds like it would work.  In particular I would be
>> happy to distribute it under Common Development and Distribution License
>
> Thanks Jim for your help !
>
> The GNU General Public License is said to be incompatible with the Common
> Development and Distribution License, and I worry that it may cause problem to
> Bioconductor modules that directly or transitively depend or import from
> rtracklayer.
>
> If you are looking for a non-GPL alternative, the Mozilla Public License
> version 2.0 has similar features to the CDDL (it shares a common ancestor), but
> is compatible with the GPL.
>
> Have a nice Sunday,
>
> --
> Charles Plessy
> Debian Med packaging team,
> http://www.debian.org/devel/debian-med
> Tsurumi, Kanagawa, Japan