Re: CVS commit: pkgsrc/licenses

[Brook Milligan <brook%nmsu.edu@localhost>]

> On Aug 13, 2019, at 5:10 AM, Greg Troxel <gdt%lexort.com@localhost> wrote:
> 
> "Brook Milligan" <brook%netbsd.org@localhost> writes:
> 
>> Module Name: pkgsrc
>> Committed By:        brook
>> Date:                Tue Aug 13 03:13:12 UTC 2019
>> 
>> Added Files:
>>      pkgsrc/licenses: biopython-license
> 
> Two things here:
> 
> This has a -license suffix, implying it is non-Free (non-Open,
> non-DFSG).  But it looks like a Free Software license.  Does Debian
> really not allow it?  Does upstream think it is Free?

Yes, that was my intent.  It is not listed by OSI or others as free, despite the obvious similarities to others that you noted.  The only indication of it being "free" that I know of is at 
https://enterprise.dejacode.com/licenses/public/biopython/, but even that suggests inconsistencies between the "license profile" and the "license style".  I have no idea about how the judgements are 
arrived at by that site.

I will note that BioPython states that they are in the process of relicensing everything with the 3-clause BSD license, but at far as I know that effort is not complete.  Thus, for now it seems that 
the -license part is ok.

By the way, the Boost license is listed as free by OSI but is in a file called 'boost-license'.  Is this an historical artifact?  Should it be changed?

> (As a non-serious aside, perhaps you can file a bug with upstream that
> they wrote a new license instead of picking an estabilshed one.  But
> seriously, this seems gratuitously different in text.)

Clearly, the terms are basically free, but the text is not identical to anything I know of.  Hence my initial judgement.  Perhaps we can revisit this if the license terms are changed.

Thanks for watching this.

Cheers,
Brook