|
Size: 1725
Comment:
|
Size: 1847
Comment:
|
| Deletions are marked like this. | Additions are marked like this. |
| Line 15: | Line 15: |
| These phrases are in conflict with items 6., 7. and 9. of the [[http://www.debian.org/social_contract#guidelines|Debian Free Software Guidelines]] which are widely accepte as Open Source definition because redistribution is restricted to specific cases. | These phrases are in conflict with items 6., 7. and 9. of the [[http://www.debian.org/social_contract#guidelines|Debian Free Software Guidelines]] which are widely accepte as [[http://www.opensource.org/osd.html|Open Source definition]] because redistribution is restricted to specific cases. |
| Line 26: | Line 26: |
| 1. [[http://www.opensource.org/osd.html|The Open Source Definition (Annotated)]] |
Petition to the authors of Phylip
The participants of the Debian Med sprint in Southport (27.01. to 29.01.2012) would like to ask the authors of Phylip for reconsidering their licensing conditions. The signers of this petition have a strong interest in including Phylip into the Debian distribution however, this conflicts with the following phrases of the Phylip license:
- .. the programs are not integrated with or called by any product or service that generates revenue,
- ..
- .. Permission requests for any other distribution of this program should be directed to license @ u.washington.edu
- ..
These phrases are in conflict with items 6., 7. and 9. of the Debian Free Software Guidelines which are widely accepte as Open Source definition because redistribution is restricted to specific cases.
It would be really helpful for the integration into Debian as well as for Debian derived distributions like Ubuntu and thus ?BioLinux if you might consider a wording that would enable free redistribution. Alternatively you might want to release Phylip under well known free licenses like for instance GPL, Apache, MPL or BSD.
Signing Participants
Name |
Organisation |
|
Andreas Tille |
Debian |