Hi Giovanni,
On Fri, 20 Dec 2019 at 10:28, Giovanni Biscuolo <g...@xelera.eu> wrote: > zimoun <zimon.touto...@gmail.com> writes: > > [...] > > > The issue is really to be able to contact the author. And I am not > > sure this person is even the copyright holder. (In some country, the > > company/institute own the copyright even the code is not written in > > office's hours.) > > > > > > For example, 2 files contains: > > [...] > > > The most of the files claim: > > [...] > > > For example, how many packages in Bioconductor use the Artistic 1.0? > > Sorry you have to struggle with this tedious work of sorting out YALM > (Yet Another Licensing Mess), but the first thing to do in this case is > to have a list of licenses for each file/folder and see if there is a > way to **workaround** the disappearing of upstream and if needed do some > sort of _soft_ forking just to fix the missing licensing-bits > > If we are lucky enough maybe the 95% of this package is free and the > remainging 5% easily replaceable with a free rewrite 1. This is my hope for the package flowPeak. Because it blocks my workflow at work. Now, this package is in a personal channel but nothing provides a guarantee that this channel would not disappear so the paper I am working on would not be easily reproducible (in theory and principles). Be in the Guix tree affords more chance. 2. This fix -- reuse all the free available code and replace the non-free one -- do not scale. So the question is: What is the scale we are talking about? How many packages in Bioconductor? If it is, say, a couple then it is doable. Or see with the people managing Bioconductor. If it is more, then the option is lobbying. :-) > P.S.: like Tobias, I suggest you not to spend time trying to appeal FSF > on the Artistic Licence v.1 ;-) I have used frenchy bad faith rhetoric argument. ;-) As I said, if a couple on Bioconductor are Artistic 1.0, that's ok. Otherwise, it is an issue. Right now, there is too much *if*. :-) Thanks, simon
