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

[Jim Kent]

Actually though, looking at Mozilla Public LIcense, the only differences I
don't care much about,  so if it makes it easier, I can release it under
that as well.

On Sat, Dec 19, 2015 at 9:14 PM, Michael Lawrence <lawrence.michael at gene.com
> wrote:

> 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
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.alioth.debian.org/pipermail/debian-med-packaging/attachments/20151220/14cf473c/attachment-0001.html>