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

[Jim Kent]

Actually it may be the stronger GNU I really object to.  I don't want to
force anyone that uses my code to license their code the same way.

On Sun, Dec 20, 2015 at 8:33 AM, Jim Kent <kent at soe.ucsc.edu> wrote:

> I"m sorry, I don't support the GPL at all!
>
> 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/ae58be8c/attachment-0003.html>