[AlanMcNaught <at> dial.pipex.com: RE: [InChI-discuss] Re: InChI software license]

Any license wonks here? This is pretty important.

----- Forwarded message from Alan <AlanMcNaught <at> dial.pipex.com> -----

From: Alan <AlanMcNaught <at> dial.pipex.com>
Date: Wed, 5 Oct 2005 09:34:45 +0100
To: inchi-discuss <at> lists.sourceforge.net
Cc: 'Steve Heller' <steve <at> hellers.com>
Subject: RE: [InChI-discuss] Re: InChI software license
X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook, Build 11.0.6353
Reply-To: inchi-discuss <at> lists.sourceforge.net

Dear Rich and other inchi-discuss members

The project registered on SourceForge is to "develop facilities for using
and applying the InChI algorithm"; any resulting applications would then be
available under the Artistic Licence. As you would expect, a previous
application to include the InChI code itself in a more comprehensive project
was turned down because of the nature of the present InChI licence.

As Geoff points out, I said in June that the matter of the InChI license
could be reconsidered, and that I would be happier to do this when we were
able to make conformance-testing routines available. This work is not yet
complete. However, I will be talking to various people about changing the
InChI licence during the next few weeks, and should appreciate any advice on
what OS licence might be most appropriate, bearing in mind some remaining
anxiety about preserving the integrity of the InChI code.

With best wishes

Re: [AlanMcNaught <at> dial.pipex.com: RE: [InChI-discuss] Re: InChI software license]

On Wed, Oct 05, 2005 at 11:18:57AM +0200, Eugen Leitl wrote:
> 
> Any license wonks here? This is pretty important.

I don't arrogate wonk status to myself, but I'm interested in
free software for (bio)chemistry.  

So, to cut to the chase in case a bona fide licensing wonk
happens by:  What's the question?

I'll also note this, that the biopolymer structure tools I
teach, like PyMOL, which are also going from strength to
strength, don't support mmCIF.  This is probably in large part a
direct result of the licensing restrictions placed on that
format.  If the inchi folk think their stuff will fare any
better, I'd like to know why they think so.

They can set up an organization to vouch for the conformance of
implementations without such restrictions.

--

-- 
Joe
_______________________________________________
linux-elitists 
http://zgp.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-elitists

Re: [AlanMcNaught <at> dial.pipex.com: RE: [InChI-discuss] Re: InChI software license]

On Wed, Oct 05, 2005 at 04:32:10PM +0200, Eugen Leitl wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 05, 2005 at 09:07:58AM -0500, D. Joe Anderson wrote:
> 
> > So, to cut to the chase in case a bona fide licensing wonk
> > happens by:  What's the question?
> 
> It's about the license for InChI http://www.iupac.org/inchi/
> and this license http://www.iupac.org/inchi/license.html
> some folks (see the mail I cited, and followup on the list)
> need to use InChI parsing code, and are hampered by the 
> license. 

OK.  Let me try this again.  What you have above are statements,
not questions.  is there a question you have?

I mean, if they are hampered, they are hampered, and that's very
much not good.  My decidedly lay reading of the license is that
it's non-free, due to the conformance requirements, particularly
those in 4.1.ii and 4.1.iv.  4.1.iii is also a problem, given
that the notification requirements aren't all that unusual and
generally don't pass what the Debian folk call the desert isle
test.  The "you can't call it InChi(TM) portion" would be
acceptable, I'd think, although some might find it obnoxious (cf
use of the Apache or PHP names)

  4.1 The Licensee may:
   (i) download, copy, and redistribute any of the InChITM
   Material;
   (ii) use the InChITM Protocol with his/her own software,
   provided that generation of an InChITM is consistent

[geoff <at> geoffhutchison.net: Re: [InChI-discuss] Re: InChI software license]

----- Forwarded message from Geoffrey Hutchison <geoff <at> geoffhutchison.net> -----

From: Geoffrey Hutchison <geoff <at> geoffhutchison.net>
Date: Wed, 5 Oct 2005 14:59:11 -0400
To: inchi-discuss <at> lists.sourceforge.net
Cc: jsb <at> cambridgesoft.com
Subject: Re: [InChI-discuss] Re: InChI software license
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.734)
Reply-To: inchi-discuss <at> lists.sourceforge.net

On Oct 5, 2005, at 11:48 AM, Jonathan Brecher wrote:

>I am not a lawyer, but it seems pretty innocuous to me.  Is the  
>only issue here that it doesn't satisfy the exact letter of the  
>requirements for being "Open Source"? Or is there an actual issue  
>of substance here that I'm missing, that would prevent someone from  
>using the InChI source code?

I am not a lawyer either, and I do not play one on TV. Initially, the  
license looked fine to me too. But in reality, it prevents quite a  
lot of people and software projects from using InChI source code.  
That's why several of us are raising the issue. (Honestly, I hate  
software licenses.)

You may not care personally, because the license allows you to use  
and integrate InChI code into ChemDraw or other CambridgeSoft  
programs. Heck, I think that would be a great addition to ChemDraw 10  
or 11 or whatever. Can I consider this e-mail a feature suggestion? 

But the current license is completely incompatible with *any* open  

Re: [AlanMcNaught <at> dial.pipex.com: RE: [InChI-discuss] Re: InChI software license]

On Wed, Oct 05, 2005 at 11:18:57AM +0200, Eugen Leitl wrote:
> 
> Any license wonks here? This is pretty important.
<beeeg snip>

I'm not a license wonk or someone who plays a lawyer on TV, so to me,
that looks like an advertising-clause license.  If you want to say
your code generates InChI Protocol, it must pass a specific test:
generate identical output to the freely-available InChI Software.

The InChI Software itself is not Free, but it's gratis, and source is
available and redistributible.  So link to it, call it, redistribute
it with your package but don't incorporate it in your code.

If you write an OSS InChI-compat library, call it something else and
say that it is "meant to communicate with software that uses the InChI
protocol".  AKA weasel-word your way around it.  Isn't that what folks
do for other non-Free formats & protocols?  

There has to be a better way to maintain standards,
  Aaron
_______________________________________________
linux-elitists 
http://zgp.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-elitists

[fred <at> bytesforall.org: [silk] FN'sEyeOnFLOSS *** Few hours to midnight... and FOSS.in deadline]

----- Forwarded message from "Frederick Noronha (FN)" <fred <at> bytesforall.org> -----

From: "Frederick Noronha (FN)" <fred <at> bytesforall.org>
Date: Sat, 08 Oct 2005 21:13:52 +0530
To: silklist <at> lists.hserus.net
Subject: [silk] FN'sEyeOnFLOSS *** Few hours to midnight... and FOSS.in
	deadline
Organization: Independent Journalist
X-Mailer: Evolution 2.0.4 
Reply-To: silklist <at> lists.hserus.net

................................................................
FN's Eye on FLOSS (Free/Libre and Open Source Software  ........
................................................................

[</>]o[</>]o[</>]o[</>]o[</>]o[</>]o[</>]o[</>]o[</>]o[</>]o[</>]

MEET INDIAN FLOSS BLOGGERS: http://planet.foss.in/
----------------------------------------------------
FOSS4US blog (NGOs and FLOSS) http://foss4us.org/blog

[</>]o[</>]o[</>]o[</>]o[</>]o[</>]o[</>]o[</>]o[</>]o[</>]o[</>]

NEWS FROM BANGALORE AND PLANS FOR FOSS.IN: Atul Chitnis
<mail <at> atulchitnis.net> writes on the
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/foss-in-announce/ list:

          This is it, the last day of speaker and talks
          registration for FOSS.IN/2005.

[rgb <at> phy.duke.edu: Re: [Beowulf] hpl size problems]

----- Forwarded message from "Robert G. Brown" <rgb <at> phy.duke.edu> -----

From: "Robert G. Brown" <rgb <at> phy.duke.edu>
Date: Tue, 04 Oct 2005 09:26:29 -0400
To: Chris Samuel <csamuel <at> vpac.org>
Cc: beowulf <at> beowulf.org
Subject: Re: [Beowulf] hpl size problems
X-Mailer: http://www.courier-mta.org/cone/

Chris Samuel writes:

>On Sun, 2 Oct 2005 05:38 am, Robert G. Brown wrote:
>
>>This is where I think things NEED to head. ??RPM was and is in some ways
>>a lovely thing. ??However, I personally think it's way short on the
>>metadata front, and woefully difficult to extend.
>
>Would Debian's .deb format be better ?
>
>They created it in 95 to be a more extensible version of whatever dpkg used
>before..

I don't THINK that the issue is one of format per se.  All packaging
formats consist of a container with an installable tree, the ability to
run scripts pre and post (un)install, and a variety of metadata
associated with the packaged material -- dependencies, provides,
information/synopsis, copyright/license information, in addition to
package name and revision and build/release info.  The "problems" I
allude to are in both the metadata and the associated db for storing it,
not in the containerizing of the data in the physical file format.  One

Re: [rgb <at> phy.duke.edu: Re: [Beowulf] hpl size problems]

On 04-Oct-2005, Eugen Leitl wrote:
> From: "Robert G. Brown" <rgb <at> phy.duke.edu>
> Date: Tue, 04 Oct 2005 09:26:29 -0400
> [...]
> I happen to think that the metadata in the package itself should be
> in xml format as a "meta" design choice for a variety of reasons,
> but even this isn't a necessary thing, only desireable

Ugh. I find the easy-editing of package metadata files (RPM foo.spec,
Debian control, etc.) to be far more valuable than any advantage that
might come from hierarchically structured metadata.

To paraphrase JWZ[0], Some people, when confronted with a data set,
think "I know, I'll use XML". Now they have two problems. XML is the
right choice where a highly flexible hierarchical data structure is
needed, but the tradeoff, loss of simple editing with any text editor
I choose, had better be worth it.

> Finally, one MUST NOT FORGET that rpms tend to be FUBAR not because
> of any particular weakness in rpm (the design) per se or in
> rpmbuild, but out of egregious user error.

Indeed. The much-vaunted package quality of Debian's official packages
is not due to the format they use, but due to the package policy[1],
and the QA requirement that all deviations from that policy are
release-critical bugs.

The reason I choose Debian is because they seem to be doing the best
at package quantity *and* quality. The APT toolset is useful only
because the packages are of a consistently high quality. Any package

Re: [rgb <at> phy.duke.edu: Re: [Beowulf] hpl size problems]

On Tue, 2005-10-04 at 15:37 +0200, Eugen Leitl wrote:
> ----- Forwarded message from "Robert G. Brown" <rgb <at> phy.duke.edu> -----
> 
> From: "Robert G. Brown" <rgb <at> phy.duke.edu>
> Date: Tue, 04 Oct 2005 09:26:29 -0400
> To: Chris Samuel <csamuel <at> vpac.org>
> Cc: beowulf <at> beowulf.org
> Subject: Re: [Beowulf] hpl size problems
> X-Mailer: http://www.courier-mta.org/cone/
> 
> Chris Samuel writes:
> 
> >On Sun, 2 Oct 2005 05:38 am, Robert G. Brown wrote:
> >
> >>This is where I think things NEED to head. ??RPM was and is in some ways
> >>a lovely thing. ??However, I personally think it's way short on the
> >>metadata front, and woefully difficult to extend.
> >
> >Would Debian's .deb format be better ?
> >
> >They created it in 95 to be a more extensible version of whatever dpkg used
> >before..
> 
> I don't THINK that the issue is one of format per se.  All packaging
> formats consist of a container with an installable tree, the ability to
> run scripts pre and post (un)install, and a variety of metadata
> associated with the packaged material -- dependencies, provides,
> information/synopsis, copyright/license information, in addition to
> package name and revision and build/release info.  The "problems" I
> allude to are in both the metadata and the associated db for storing it,

Linux inspirational posters

	http://www.arouse.net/despair-linux/

--

-- 
Eugen* Leitl <a href="http://leitl.org">leitl</a>
______________________________________________________________
ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820            http://www.leitl.org
8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A  7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE

_______________________________________________
linux-elitists 
http://zgp.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-elitists