Any possibility on making this free and open source?
Closed this issue · 17 comments
I see that libdisorder is under GPL(v2) but that the rest of the source is not under a free license. Is there any possibility that fastahack could be put under a free license?
I'm interested in this, too, as I'd like it to be packaged for GNU Guix. Fasta.cpp and Fasta.h contain "All rights reserved" notices. Is there any way to release them under a free license?
They should be under an open license. Let me make that change.
On Wed, Apr 20, 2016, 14:07 rekado notifications@github.com wrote:
I'm interested in this, too, as I'd like it to be packaged for GNU Guix.
Fasta.cpp and Fasta.h contain "All rights reserved" notices. Is there any
way to release them under a free license?—
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub
#8 (comment)
Any progress on this?
I'd also be very appreciative if the licencing was made clear for fastahack (as well as smithwaterman, intervaltree, multichoose, and tabixpp).
P.S. Congratulations on the PBWT manuscript
Same here as for libsmithwaterman: To package for Debian a free license is needed. I'd like to package freebayes for Debian and all its predependencies need a free license.
They should all be under a free license... Is there anything we can't
simply add an MIT license to?
On Fri, Jul 1, 2016, 09:27 Andreas Tille notifications@github.com wrote:
Same here as for libsmithwaterman: To package for Debian a free license is
needed. I'd like to package freebayes for Debian and all its
predependencies need a free license.—
You are receiving this because you commented.Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
#8 (comment), or mute
the thread
https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe/AAI4ERfgt3wQo7CbohXBeM8KZirc69qhks5qRMFMgaJpZM4GbXRl
.
Hi Erik,
thanks for your quick response. Could you please at least drop a
LICENSE file into the git repository that specifies this? Otherwise per
definition a code with no explicite license is non-free.
Kind regards
Andreas.
On Fri, Jul 01, 2016 at 12:35:10AM -0700, Erik Garrison wrote:
They should all be under a free license... Is there anything we can't
simply add an MIT license to?On Fri, Jul 1, 2016, 09:27 Andreas Tille notifications@github.com wrote:
Same here as for libsmithwaterman: To package for Debian a free license is
needed. I'd like to package freebayes for Debian and all its
predependencies need a free license.—
You are receiving this because you commented.Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
#8 (comment), or mute
the thread
https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe/AAI4ERfgt3wQo7CbohXBeM8KZirc69qhks5qRMFMgaJpZM4GbXRl
.
You are receiving this because you commented.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
#8 (comment)
Yes, I will do so.
For packaging, we are in the process of setting as default commonly used
options. It would be good if the packaged version were made after these
changes.
On Fri, Jul 1, 2016, 09:56 Andreas Tille notifications@github.com wrote:
Hi Erik,
thanks for your quick response. Could you please at least drop a
LICENSE file into the git repository that specifies this? Otherwise per
definition a code with no explicite license is non-free.Kind regards
Andreas.
On Fri, Jul 01, 2016 at 12:35:10AM -0700, Erik Garrison wrote:
They should all be under a free license... Is there anything we can't
simply add an MIT license to?On Fri, Jul 1, 2016, 09:27 Andreas Tille notifications@github.com
wrote:Same here as for libsmithwaterman: To package for Debian a free
license is
needed. I'd like to package freebayes for Debian and all its
predependencies need a free license.—
You are receiving this because you commented.Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
#8 (comment),
or mute
the thread
<
https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe/AAI4ERfgt3wQo7CbohXBeM8KZirc69qhks5qRMFMgaJpZM4GbXRl.
You are receiving this because you commented.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
#8 (comment)—
You are receiving this because you commented.
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
#8 (comment), or mute
the thread
https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe/AAI4ET3xT5oS_RBvYRrRNE3LYmKV8KJSks5qRMgcgaJpZM4GbXRl
.
Hi Erik,
On Fri, Jul 01, 2016 at 01:01:30AM -0700, Erik Garrison wrote:
Yes, I will do so.
Thanks a lot.
For packaging, we are in the process of setting as default commonly used
options. It would be good if the packaged version were made after these
changes.
Thanks for this helpful information. However, I think I'll go with the
current version for a start since for new software it takes some time to
"pass the entrance" into Debian. Once some software is in we can apply
changes quite quickly.
If you speak about new structure: For Debian I have separately packaged
libdisorder to avoid a code duplication. You can download the package
source from
https://packages.debian.org/source/unstable/libdisorder
or from packaging git that is linked from there.
May be this helps.
Kind regards
Andreas.
Right, that makes sense. Getting it in first is a harder step than updating
the default parameters and bumping the version. Thank you so much for doing
this. Debian is awesome and it will be amazing to have freebayes and
related tools available there. I will apply the licenses within the next
few hours (need to get back to a connected computer).
On Fri, Jul 1, 2016, 14:39 Andreas Tille notifications@github.com wrote:
Hi Erik,
On Fri, Jul 01, 2016 at 01:01:30AM -0700, Erik Garrison wrote:
Yes, I will do so.
Thanks a lot.
For packaging, we are in the process of setting as default commonly used
options. It would be good if the packaged version were made after these
changes.Thanks for this helpful information. However, I think I'll go with the
current version for a start since for new software it takes some time to
"pass the entrance" into Debian. Once some software is in we can apply
changes quite quickly.If you speak about new structure: For Debian I have separately packaged
libdisorder to avoid a code duplication. You can download the package
source fromhttps://packages.debian.org/source/unstable/libdisorder
or from packaging git that is linked from there.
May be this helps.
Kind regards
Andreas.
—
You are receiving this because you commented.
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
#8 (comment), or mute
the thread
https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe/AAI4EWfw05TgP-nXabzNYTS-RqTGIB00ks5qRRisgaJpZM4GbXRl
.
Any luck yet?
@ekg Thank you for adding the LICENSE file!
It would be very nice if you could also update the file headers to mention the license, because right now Fasta.cpp still says "All rights reserved", which makes it impossible for us to assume that the LICENSE file also applies to Fasta.cpp.
I'm looking forward to seeing this packaged for GNU Guix and other GNU/Linux distributions!
This is a friendly ping :)
We'd still like to be able to package it for GNU Guix.
FWIW here's what the FSF says about it:
Since the LICENSE file is there the needed conditions are fullfilled. Package is accepted by Debian ftpmaster so the license was also verified. I think the issue can be closed.
I can confirm that Debian ftpmasters have accepted the package inside Debian which is a good sign that there are people who are quite picky about licenses agree that this bug can be closed. Doing a real release (see issue 14) would be nice.