On 11/29/2014 12:29 PM, Sascha Steinbiss wrote: > Hi all, > >>> But we would like to ask you to clearly indicate that the profiles are >>> only free for non-commercial usage, commercial users need a licence. >>> The easiest approach is to add a reference to the SILVA terms of >>> license assigned to the software/profile. >> Argghh! this will prevent from being in free section. And I suppose >> those profiles are mandary for software usage ? > To ensure that the Debian version and the upstream version produce the > same results, yes, they are necessary. I guess there are two choices now: > > 1. Put barrnap in non-free. What consequences would that have for a > 'regular' academic user -- they would have to enable non-free on a > default install, right? Yeap, they need to add non-free to apt sources > > 2. Use an alternative set of pHMMs in the Debian version of barrnap, > only including those which are built from Rfam alignments only (Rfam > has a free license (CC0)). However, that would strongly limit the > functionality of barrnap as whole rRNA families could end up > being missing from the output of the dfsg compliant version. > > I guess to have a usable barrnap version, 1. is the only viable > solution. Any comments? I agree > Thanks > Sascha
-- gpg key id: 4096R/326D8438 (keyring.debian.org) Key fingerprint = 5FB4 6F83 D3B9 5204 6335 D26D 78DC 68DB 326D 8438 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [email protected] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [email protected] Archive: https://lists.debian.org/[email protected]
