Re: Seeking advice about PSICOV license compatibility with GPL-2
On Tue, 30 Oct 2012 19:31:22 +0100 Laszlo Kajan wrote: [...] Dear Team members! Hello Laszlo, I am a debian-legal regular and what follows is my own personal opinion on the issue (from the licensing point of view). The usual disclaimers apply (IANAL, TINLA, ...). PSICOV [1], a protein contact prediction tool, is built with a patched version of the GPL-2 Fortran source glasso [2]: gfortran -O3 psicov.c glasso_psicov.f90 -lm -lgsl -lgslcblas -o psicov This seems to create an executable binary of PSICOV, statically linked with the modified version of glasso, and dynamically linked with the GNU Scientific Library. The license of PSICOV does not seem free to me [3], with restrictions on commercial use [...] The license of PSICOV indeed seems to include a number of definitely non-free restrictions and really appears to be GPL-v2-incompatible and GPL-v3-incompatible. At the same time, glasso seems to be released under the terms of the GNU GPL v2 (only v2, I would say, since I didn't spot any or later version permission in the somewhat unclear glasso_1.7.tar.gz source archive). The GNU GSL is released under the terms of the GNU GPL v3 or later (http://packages.debian.org/changelogs/pool/main/g/gsl/current/copyright). This makes for a very odd mutually-incompatible license mix: the GNU GPL v3 is incompatible with the GNU GPL v2, and the PSICOV license is incompatible with both. If I understand GPL well, this simply is not allowed: PSICOV is not allowed to restrict what is granted by glasso's license (and that does not limit any of the above). The question is: * Do I see it correctly that PSICOV's license violates the GPL-2 terms of glasso? I think that the PSICOV binary (built as described above) is legally undistributable: its distribution appears to violate the copyright of glasso and of the GNU Scientific Library. The possible solutions I can think of are (in order of descending desirability): (A) contact the PSICOV copyright holder(s) and persuade them to re-license PSICOV under GPL-compatible terms (for instance under the terms of the GNU GPL v2 or later); at the same time contact the GNU Scientific Library copyright holder(s) and persuade them to re-license GSL under the terms of the GNU GPL *v2* or later (rather than GPL v3 or later) (B) contact the PSICOV copyright holder(s) and persuade them to re-license PSICOV under GPL-compatible terms (for instance under the terms of the GNU GPL v2 or later); at the same time contact the glasso copyright holder(s) and persuade them to re-license glasso under the terms of the GNU GPL v2 *or later* (rather than GPL v2 only) (C) refrain completely from distributing PSICOV Please note that solution (A) is unlikely, since the GNU Scientific Library, as part of the GNU Project, is supposed to promote the GNU GPL v3 (due to the FSF propaganda). Maybe solution (B) has more chances to be achievable... I hope that my own personal take on this matter helps a bit. Bye and good luck. -- http://www.inventati.org/frx/frx-gpg-key-transition-2010.txt New GnuPG key, see the transition document! . Francesco Poli . GnuPG key fpr == CA01 1147 9CD2 EFDF FB82 3925 3E1C 27E1 1F69 BFFE pgp3XuWL0Huhf.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Seeking advice about PSICOV license compatibility with GPL-2
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Thank you very much Francesco! I would like to implement a free alternative to PSICOV, therefore I have contacted the authors of glasso and asked them to consider changing the license to GPL-2+ (2 or later), as you recommended. Best regards, Laszlo On 01/11/12 13:09, Francesco Poli wrote: On Tue, 30 Oct 2012 19:31:22 +0100 Laszlo Kajan wrote: [...] Dear Team members! Hello Laszlo, I am a debian-legal regular and what follows is my own personal opinion on the issue (from the licensing point of view). The usual disclaimers apply (IANAL, TINLA, ...). PSICOV [1], a protein contact prediction tool, is built with a patched version of the GPL-2 Fortran source glasso [2]: gfortran -O3 psicov.c glasso_psicov.f90 -lm -lgsl -lgslcblas -o psicov This seems to create an executable binary of PSICOV, statically linked with the modified version of glasso, and dynamically linked with the GNU Scientific Library. The license of PSICOV does not seem free to me [3], with restrictions on commercial use [...] The license of PSICOV indeed seems to include a number of definitely non-free restrictions and really appears to be GPL-v2-incompatible and GPL-v3-incompatible. At the same time, glasso seems to be released under the terms of the GNU GPL v2 (only v2, I would say, since I didn't spot any or later version permission in the somewhat unclear glasso_1.7.tar.gz source archive). The GNU GSL is released under the terms of the GNU GPL v3 or later (http://packages.debian.org/changelogs/pool/main/g/gsl/current/copyright). This makes for a very odd mutually-incompatible license mix: the GNU GPL v3 is incompatible with the GNU GPL v2, and the PSICOV license is incompatible with both. If I understand GPL well, this simply is not allowed: PSICOV is not allowed to restrict what is granted by glasso's license (and that does not limit any of the above). The question is: * Do I see it correctly that PSICOV's license violates the GPL-2 terms of glasso? I think that the PSICOV binary (built as described above) is legally undistributable: its distribution appears to violate the copyright of glasso and of the GNU Scientific Library. The possible solutions I can think of are (in order of descending desirability): (A) contact the PSICOV copyright holder(s) and persuade them to re-license PSICOV under GPL-compatible terms (for instance under the terms of the GNU GPL v2 or later); at the same time contact the GNU Scientific Library copyright holder(s) and persuade them to re-license GSL under the terms of the GNU GPL *v2* or later (rather than GPL v3 or later) (B) contact the PSICOV copyright holder(s) and persuade them to re-license PSICOV under GPL-compatible terms (for instance under the terms of the GNU GPL v2 or later); at the same time contact the glasso copyright holder(s) and persuade them to re-license glasso under the terms of the GNU GPL v2 *or later* (rather than GPL v2 only) (C) refrain completely from distributing PSICOV Please note that solution (A) is unlikely, since the GNU Scientific Library, as part of the GNU Project, is supposed to promote the GNU GPL v3 (due to the FSF propaganda). Maybe solution (B) has more chances to be achievable... I hope that my own personal take on this matter helps a bit. Bye and good luck. -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://www.enigmail.net/ iQIcBAEBAgAGBQJQkquBAAoJEJvS1kCaDFL6I4sQAMypVuqLTqZk82UxOX9LN2i8 lX6GDcbynz28zSymczF7kSSo/m02K6D0fgxKB8Le3PQKdFKB0saqbidjpCxPzShE pHEjHTlrcDbwRnt3cFfFq52PjSDRDKq9xfuGFMCsglPCJwOFKgz3/kzJFxIxB/tu +PuXfAR/PLeDKJvvrqklATMASdwcSFIwpIeI7a8v8IqR7rX54OVNSguWljf9Qtoy FEsAccflPk9ImTpnsL0cPkT/dCSuTP/df0nu7h5sP0NBO4BJB2jRhKdGr2MbQT/T To1aokgru2XXc03JFM0evrp5NlnNYi+SoGeUmmUKJK7TQgRyNRPZHkmzsFdAJLSh nFwe9x1Tt6H2B9oAIzTBhhsTRZEo5PyjGz0afjeV/F8khXHtH5fdlpLycKu1oTvp ti52CS/5c0N9RM6VoslVvriuI8upy/JAIkD0UCdAJo7iLYLVf171nxb5lL2EXRff SVk03sa16A/86BAXAeRxqKFtuA7vrZcuKjTtEMkiFBDFczxYxIccn8r5BeXeUpUD wqAWyx2RXELaB3rS7Cod/uTpdCIGVPGK6LKiWPgnvzAYNq901DB7a47BjD4O69p9 T2uz81v0FhsBKvg7u8JW2hLXSOw9ZL1FeZIz7QSqxYFAosAKj2NF3/QMA7ExNWlw A4BXM6V5vo6YmB2l0gL9 =xY5d -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/5092ab81.4040...@rostlab.org
Seeking advice about PSICOV license compatibility with GPL-2
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Dear Team members! PSICOV [1], a protein contact prediction tool, is built with a patched version of the GPL-2 Fortran source glasso [2]: gfortran -O3 psicov.c glasso_psicov.f90 -lm -lgsl -lgslcblas -o psicov The license of PSICOV does not seem free to me [3], with restrictions on commercial use, e.g.: The Software may not be sold as a standalone package, or incorporated into a commercial software package without the written permission of the Copyright holder. ... The results produced by the Software may not be incorporated into any data banks or databases which are subject to the payment of access or license fees without the written permission of the Copyright holder. ... Incorporation of the Software into a commercial Web site or other fee paying service is not allowed without the written permission of the Copyright holder. If I understand GPL well, this simply is not allowed: PSICOV is not allowed to restrict what is granted by glasso's license (and that does not limit any of the above). The question is: * Do I see it correctly that PSICOV's license violates the GPL-2 terms of glasso? Thank you very much for your opinion in advance. Best regards, Laszlo [1] http://bioinfadmin.cs.ucl.ac.uk/downloads/PSICOV/ [2] http://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/glasso/index.html [3] http://bioinfadmin.cs.ucl.ac.uk/downloads/PSICOV/LICENSE -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://www.enigmail.net/ iQIcBAEBAgAGBQJQkBz6AAoJEJvS1kCaDFL6Ec0P/RhPFqhgYbb16fp4tHNZ5Fqx gSUxkTiWhjKXW1hMTi0NPpq5hqKeThhXvyBkPY8LmxqjfKpobTRCzcOQN5uHVUEN Gv0y+4rBs4noLMuauw52VoYMK66vxxs6H/I/0AG9eYvrnkBL0AKuvzXU8/fItk5G FsrQ9RR+32evKR+91lw6f/evSKmW3x5kJCPAPXxcP4f3H5K2QsA0/LriGvW6LwOi V4fdbTghipp83Fn9OVreppl/RJSG6Ipy76KCvQarLw91UfkXnBYUVjfEJN8Y27qO IV1GbajFt4R2gKTXuWOd20qJsL14h5F4ff16iVcoa1c8s1NqxBLAQSsr0kwvapjk JSVBCh0o1JVG0frq5SWQaBfXCXMk0BDYhqYeGSV96Ld40/BlOvhLB6pXyEtfADNn dMXTGjCA2VTnL60CsEfUXOAQN98/upFiyr6W1kOqIc/zgPy8Wvqf/w0z73LA0AJT pBom8qvuuN15rGdvcB9LXJ7q/RsYqQkl1E+K0wAvVZmRy501dMr/2t7cYsSZNs8b GG0eZXi3xxcY9XKcSVvKlYpOY9Mdz+8VsAfO0sXedZDLl9+T8c13AzXE86x/DwgX eI4xlzGnQxi405qNU5sBfxpJSVOe+S4FL6nMCFB/WMaMKR50ZL996HU/beX7cclj yPsmx2P89qGhwj5l49xc =FkE4 -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/50901cfa.5020...@rostlab.org
