On Mon, Sep 16, 2013 at 12:59:11PM +0100, Peter Rice wrote: > On 16/09/2013 11:31, Faheem Mitha wrote: > >This is really not Debian-related, except insofar as the software in > >question is something that might have been in Debian one day. I talked > >about that with people on debian-med recently. So, it is technically > >off-topic.
> I posted a reply on stackexchange with instructions to get the data > from the EBI SRS server. > However, I have run into this issue before in the context of > biological database entries and Debian so it may be worth discussing > here. There were objections to including SwissProt entries in the > example data for the EMBOSS package because the licensing of > SwissProt does not allow them to be edited. That was resolved by > agreeing that scientific facts should not be edited so that the > files could be accepted as part of a Debian package even though they > could not be changed. A fine compromise I feel. Hopefully, this is a misstatement of the actual rationale for including this data in Debian, because it is *not* acceptable to have packages in main containing data that we are not allowed to modify. The real rationale is surely that, because facts are *not governed by copyright*, any licensing claim over this data is ignorable. -- Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world. Ubuntu Developer http://www.debian.org/ slanga...@ubuntu.com vor...@debian.org
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
