(Moving to Galaxy-dev, seems more appropriate).

John Jones wrote, On 08/23/2012 05:29 PM:
> His original question was about getting Galaxy to recognise LDAP 
> authentication and personal storage space rather than shared storage space as 
> is usual with Galaxy.
> Licensing only came into it because Greg wanted LDAP authentication to track 
> individual user usage (for billing) and I questioned the legality of billing 
> for the software used by Galaxy, as I'm sure some components have a 
> non-commercial usage licence clause.

1. Technically (billing on an SGE cluster):

There's a script in "./contrib" called "collect_sge_job_timings.sh" .
details are here:

Assuming you're using PostgreSQL + SGE, it will give you what you want 
(break-down of SGE jobs timings and Galaxy users).

With little adaptation, you can use it to exact SGE JobID and Galaxy Tool-ID / 
user ID.

If you want to extract it directly from the galaxy database, then the following 
SQL will get you started:
 email as "user",
 tool_id as "tool", 
 job_runner_external_id as "SGE_ID"
 job, galaxy_user
 job.user_id = galaxy_user.id
 job_runner_name like 'drmaa%'
"job_runner_external_ID" will be the SGE-ID, and once you have the list (per 
each galaxy user), you can use "qacct" to get the information for the job, then 
calculate the charges.

2. Legally:
IANAL, but to the best of my (limited) understanding:

1. Galaxy itself (server code, etc.) - completely legal to run it commercially, 
even charge money for it - it is licensed as a BSD/MIT style license.
2. Individual tools:
if the tools are GPL'd (e.g. bowtie, tophat, bwa, cufflinks) or BSD/MIT - 
completely legal to run them commercially, and even charge money for them.
if the tools use any special license that restrict commercial use (commonly 
stated as "free for personal, academic, non-commercial use", e.g. Jim Kent's 
UCSC Genome Browser tools) - then you can't use them in your commercial company 
without buying a special license (not even internally).

It's really not complicated at all, and most (if not all) tools that you 
compile from source to install them will have a file called "license" or 
"copying" that will tell you what is the license.
If the tools didn't come with a source code, they are probably not 
free/open-source for commercial use (e.g. - novoalign).

3. Morally:
Anyone who thinks of free/open-source as "charity" is missing the point.
There is no "charity", and it's perfectly legal, moral, and even recommended to 
charge money when offering services that are based on free/open-source tools - 
the requirement (when using GPL) is to give the source code to users when they 
ask for it (and some other complications, don't want to start a flame war here) 
- so if they don't want to pay $1,000 for your service - the are more than 
welcomed to buy their own cluster and storage and servers and run the program 
themselves - that is the whole point of free/open source. There is not charity.

When people write (and publish) software - they explicitly decide upon the 
license they prefer, and they should know what are the affects of the license.
For example, the Galaxy team released Galaxy under a permissive BSD/MIT style 
license, so they were completely aware of the fact that not only Galaxy can be 
incorporated into a commercial product, the license doesn't even require the 
commercial company to release any code changes they make to Galaxy. It's a 
conscious decision, not an after-thought, and not charity.

(end of my rambling...)



Please keep all replies on the list by using "reply all"
in your mail client.  To manage your subscriptions to this
and other Galaxy lists, please use the interface at:


Reply via email to