Hi Ricardo,
On Thu, 25 Jul 2019 at 14:47, Ricardo Wurmus <rek...@elephly.net> wrote: > > On Wed, 24 Jul 2019 at 23:16, Ricardo Wurmus <rek...@elephly.net> wrote: > >> That’s because version 1.0 is considered non-free. “licenses.scm” also > >> contains “clarified-artistic”, which is essentially the same as version > >> 1.0 but with a few clarifications of those points that could be > >> interpreted as conditions making the software non-free. > It would be great if they could use the Clarified Artistic License > instead. It’s really close to the Artistic 1.0, so unless they really > want the non-free interpretation of Artistic 1.0 it should be no trouble > for them to switch. I have no news from the flowPeak's maintainer and I think the package is still in Bioconductor 3.10 but without any recent updates. The file guix/licenses.scm contains "non-copyleft" therefore why do not put the licenses Artistic 1.0 under this label? It will allow the inclusion of this package -- and probable others from Bioconductor. Well, I have read both licenses and the Clarified one does not appear me clearer; they are both doomed! Other said, calling Artistic 1.0 non-free in this Bioconductor case is more a flavour of taste than a real legal issue. Especially when this very Artistic 1.0 "qualifies as a free software license, but it may not be a real copyleft" [1]. [1] https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.en.html#PerlLicense All the best, simon
