Re: Bioconductor package flowPeaks license Artistic 1.0?

[zimoun]

Hi Tobias, again :-)

On Thu, 19 Dec 2019 at 18:18, Tobias Geerinckx-Rice <address@hidden> wrote:

> zimoun 写道：

> > Especially when this
> > very Artistic 1.0 "qualifies as a free software license, but it
> > may
> > not be a real copyleft" [1].
>
> …but that's not this very licence, it's a completely different
> one: the (disjunct) combination of the Artistic 1.0 licence *and
> the GPL*, i.e. ‘choose one’.  The result is only free because you
> can *ignore* the Artistic 1.0 part.


Maybe I misread. And I would like to avoid any confusion.
So I have also read the French translation. Then again the English version.

Where is the License of Perl 5 and below explicitly  defined? There is
no pointer...

What I understand is: when the License of Perl 5 and below is used,
then the copyright holder chooses either the Artistic 1.0, either the
GPL. Then the License of Perl 5 and below is free but non-copyleft.

Well, it appears to me a hack. I guess that there is a lot of Perl
packages under Artistic 1.0 which seems an issue. So let create this
License of Perl 5 and below saying: choose between Artistic 1.0 or
GPL. And because you have this choice, everything is fine.


I probably misread and because it is not Guix related, I would like to
ask to GNU or FSF. Do you know where can I post an email?


All the best,
simon