On Tue, Aug 20, 2013 at 2:57 PM, John Chilton <chil...@msi.umn.edu> wrote:
> I don't have time to argue about this especially because I agree that
> cc is likely better than OSS licenses, but I am just too passionate
> about this point not too. Workflows are 100%  software!!!

I think we agree here - although I want workflows in Galaxy to be
a bit broader than just the scripted actions and include help text
and sample data as well (which should also happen with software
in general):


> A python script is just a protocol or a cookbook that tells a Python
> interpreter (runtime) how to behave. Even assembly is just a set of
> bits without a machine to run it on.
> You would never tell a biologist this, but Galaxy is a high-level
> graphical programming environment, histories are an interactive
> console for testing and debugging, workflows are finished programs
> that can be rerun using the same runtime on different inputs.
> -John

So yes, we could indeed use traditional software licenses
(open source or otherwise) for workflows.

I've been using the MIT license on most of my recent Galaxy
Tools, which is extremely liberal - so if I used that on workflows
it would of course allow editing etc, and should be OK for
combining with other workflows too.

I don't want to accidentally block reuse of my workflows
due to a too narrow license.

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:

To search Galaxy mailing lists use the unified search at:

Reply via email to