To all Guix interested in Bioconductor, forgive me if I raise this question here and not to "upstream", but IMHO this issue should escalate to Bioconductor and Guix community could do better than single package maintainers, zimoun in this case
I'm not a user of Bioconductor packages so I have no "weight" on this matter, but I guess in Guix community there are **many** (potential?) users of Bioconductor packages: could you please organize a "pressure group" to convince Bioconductor be strict in their package acceptance rules? I fear flowPeacks will not be the last package with this kind licensing problems Tobias Geerinckx-Rice <m...@tobias.gr> writes: > Zimoun, [...] >> The issue is that upstream has disappeared, as usual in scientific >> software. Someone writes a piece of code then publishes a paper and >> sometimes the requirement for publication is to be pushed in >> mainstream collection of packages (Bioconductor in this case). But >> the copyright holder does not maintain the code and instead write >> another piece of code, try to publish a paper, etc.. Well the >> Reproducibility of Science crisis. > > That is a shame. And that while other scientists (like you) are > working hard to make research more ‘open’ and reproducible. Since «Bioconductor is committed to open source, collaborative, distributed software development and literate, reproducible research.» [1] The main point here is that legal aspects are an **integral part** of reproducible research and the freedom of the developer to choose the "open source" license he prefer should be _guided_ so he does not involuntary harm the Bioconductor commitment to reproducible research (redistribution is part of reproducibility). In short: since "Clarifies Artistic License" aka "Artistic License (Perl) 1.0" [2] (FSF approved) exists since long ago *and* since "Artistic License v1" is not FSF approved, Biocounductor team should not accept provide a list of accepted licenses that allows all free software distributions to redistribute the packages (we have one if they wish :-) ) ...and yes, this means that Bioconductor does not accept an OSI approved "Open Source" license [3], one of the **very few** cases (the only one) in wich OSI and FSF disagrees on licenses. To be clear, I'm pretty **sure** that an author generally does not understand the difference between "Artistic License v1" and "Artistic License (Perl) 1.0" and all he wants is his package will be freely redistributable. He should be guided, in this case by Bioconductor. WDYT? Thanks. Gio' [...] [1] https://bioconductor.org/about/ [2] https://opensource.org/licenses/Artistic-Perl-1.0 to be clear, the "diff" from Artistic License v1 is this clause «8.Aggregation of this Package with a commercial distribution is always permitted provided that the use of this Package is embedded; that is, when no overt attempt is made to make this Package's interfaces visible to the end user of the commercial distribution. Such use shall not be construed as a distribution of this Package.» [3] Artistic License v.1 is OSI approved https://opensource.org/licenses/Artistic-1.0 -- Giovanni Biscuolo Xelera IT Infrastructures
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
