Bug#807580: [jstjohn/KentLib] Four files do contain old licensing statement (#2)

2016-05-10 Thread Andreas Tille 
Hi Jim,

thanks for the clarification.  Do you maintain somewhere some official
repository where we could fetch these files from.  I assumed Github
would be official ...

Thanks for your quick and helpful response

   Andreas.

On Mon, May 09, 2016 at 05:32:33PM -0700, Jim Kent wrote:
> Hmm, the license statements are like so on these 4:
> 
> /* hmmstats.h - Stuff for doing statistical analysis in general and
> 
>  * hidden Markov models in particular.
> 
>  *
> 
>  * This file is copyright 2000 Jim Kent, but license is hereby
> 
>  * granted for all use - public, private or commercial. */
> 
> not what is in the github note:
> 
> * Copyright (C) 2000 Jim Kent. This source code may be freely used *
> * for personal, academic, and non-profit purposes. Commercial use *
> * permitted only by explicit agreement with Jim Kent (jim_k...@pacbell.net)
> *
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On Mon, May 9, 2016 at 11:09 AM, Andreas Tille  wrote:
> 
> > Hi Jim,
> >
> > you probably remember my constant nagging abou the licensing of your
> > library code.  Inside the bug report in Debian BTS[1] you mentioned MPL
> > yourself.  Since I did not received any definitive answer stronger than
> >
> >"looking at Mozilla Public LIcense, ... I can release it under
> > that as well."
> >
> > I was searching the web for potential new releases of the code.  I found
> > something at Github which has only four files left with a non-free
> > license and I mentioned this in the according bug report there[2].  From
> > what I can see when inspecting the whole directory it looks pretty much
> > like an unwanted leftover since all other files have later copyright and
> > a free license.
> >
> > It would be really great if you could clarify this.
> >
> > Thanks a lot for your cooperation
> >
> > Andreas.
> >
> > [1] https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=807580#112
> > [2] https://github.com/jstjohn/KentLib/issues/2
> >
> > On Mon, May 09, 2016 at 08:56:16AM -0700, John St. John wrote:
> > > Hi Andreas, this issue should be taken up directly with Jim Kent. If he
> > gives the OK I am more than happy to update those problematic headers. This
> > is not my code, so I am not sure what was intended between the conflicting
> > statement in the README that was part of the Kent source tree at the time,
> > and header comments in the individual libraries you mentioned.
> > >
> > > ---
> > > You are receiving this because you authored the thread.
> > > Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
> > > https://github.com/jstjohn/KentLib/issues/2#issuecomment-217906316
> >
> > --
> > http://fam-tille.de
> >

-- 
http://fam-tille.de

Bug#807580: [jstjohn/KentLib] Four files do contain old licensing statement (#2)

2016-05-09 Thread Jim Kent 
Hmm, the license statements are like so on these 4:

/* hmmstats.h - Stuff for doing statistical analysis in general and

 * hidden Markov models in particular.

 *

 * This file is copyright 2000 Jim Kent, but license is hereby

 * granted for all use - public, private or commercial. */

not what is in the github note:

* Copyright (C) 2000 Jim Kent. This source code may be freely used *
* for personal, academic, and non-profit purposes. Commercial use *
* permitted only by explicit agreement with Jim Kent (jim_k...@pacbell.net)
*





On Mon, May 9, 2016 at 11:09 AM, Andreas Tille  wrote:

> Hi Jim,
>
> you probably remember my constant nagging abou the licensing of your
> library code.  Inside the bug report in Debian BTS[1] you mentioned MPL
> yourself.  Since I did not received any definitive answer stronger than
>
>"looking at Mozilla Public LIcense, ... I can release it under
> that as well."
>
> I was searching the web for potential new releases of the code.  I found
> something at Github which has only four files left with a non-free
> license and I mentioned this in the according bug report there[2].  From
> what I can see when inspecting the whole directory it looks pretty much
> like an unwanted leftover since all other files have later copyright and
> a free license.
>
> It would be really great if you could clarify this.
>
> Thanks a lot for your cooperation
>
> Andreas.
>
> [1] https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=807580#112
> [2] https://github.com/jstjohn/KentLib/issues/2
>
> On Mon, May 09, 2016 at 08:56:16AM -0700, John St. John wrote:
> > Hi Andreas, this issue should be taken up directly with Jim Kent. If he
> gives the OK I am more than happy to update those problematic headers. This
> is not my code, so I am not sure what was intended between the conflicting
> statement in the README that was part of the Kent source tree at the time,
> and header comments in the individual libraries you mentioned.
> >
> > ---
> > You are receiving this because you authored the thread.
> > Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
> > https://github.com/jstjohn/KentLib/issues/2#issuecomment-217906316
>
> --
> http://fam-tille.de
>

Bug#807580: [jstjohn/KentLib] Four files do contain old licensing statement (#2)

2016-05-09 Thread Andreas Tille 
Hi Jim,

you probably remember my constant nagging abou the licensing of your
library code.  Inside the bug report in Debian BTS[1] you mentioned MPL
yourself.  Since I did not received any definitive answer stronger than

   "looking at Mozilla Public LIcense, ... I can release it under
that as well."

I was searching the web for potential new releases of the code.  I found
something at Github which has only four files left with a non-free
license and I mentioned this in the according bug report there[2].  From
what I can see when inspecting the whole directory it looks pretty much
like an unwanted leftover since all other files have later copyright and
a free license.

It would be really great if you could clarify this.

Thanks a lot for your cooperation

Andreas.

[1] https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=807580#112
[2] https://github.com/jstjohn/KentLib/issues/2

On Mon, May 09, 2016 at 08:56:16AM -0700, John St. John wrote:
> Hi Andreas, this issue should be taken up directly with Jim Kent. If he gives 
> the OK I am more than happy to update those problematic headers. This is not 
> my code, so I am not sure what was intended between the conflicting statement 
> in the README that was part of the Kent source tree at the time, and header 
> comments in the individual libraries you mentioned. 
> 
> ---
> You are receiving this because you authored the thread.
> Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
> https://github.com/jstjohn/KentLib/issues/2#issuecomment-217906316

-- 
http://fam-tille.de