Re: Bioconductor package flowPeaks license Artistic 1.0?

[Tobias Geerinckx-Rice]

Tobias Geerinckx-Rice 写道：
> zimoun 写道：
> > Other said, calling Artistic 1.0 non-free in this Bioconductor 
> > case
> > is more a flavour of taste than a real legal issue.
>
> No, it's a very real legal issue.  :-(

I should clarify: when the FSF calls the Artistic 1.0 licence 
‘vague’, that's not an aesthetic criticism.

It means that the licence is broken and fails to do what it claims 
to do: give you the licence (=freedom) to do something that would 
not otherwise be allowed by copyright law.  It means that you 
can't prove, in court, that the licence says what you thought it 
said.  It's not merely ugly, it's defective and potentially 
dangerous.

This always happens when programmers think they can write their 
own licence.  It starts with a punny name (‘artistic licence’, 
‘WTFPL’, ha ha -_-) and the result is a useless buggy mess.

Kind regards,

T G-R

signature.asc
Description: PGP signature