Confusion about RAxML versions and copyright
Hello Alexandros,
when studying the code the latest version of ARB ( http://www.arb-home.de/ )
that can be downloaded under
http://www2.mikro.biologie.tu-muenchen.de/download/ARB/latest_build/arbsrc.tgz
I stumbled upon a copy of RaXML (directory arb/GDE/RaxML) that seems to be
"newer" than your "old" version that can be downloaded from
http://www.lrr.in.tum.de/~stamatak/index_old.html
But much older than the recent version at
http://icwww.epfl.ch/~stamatak/index-Dateien/Page443.htm
There are also other versions available at the later URL but I did not try
to compare all these files. The file names inside the tarball I downloaded
from index_old
http://www.lrr.in.tum.de/~stamatak/software/RAxML-V-Float.tar.gz
are kind of matching to the version shipped with Arb but the file sizes
and dates show large differences. Moreover the only code that is accompanied
by a license statement is the version inside Arb.
I now try to sort out some points for clarification. This clarification
is done mainly on behalf of the Debian-Med project
http://www.debian.org/devel/debian-med
This project tries to provide all available Free Software that is useful
for medical care (which includes microbiology stuff - in fact this is currently
the strongest part of the project). The Debian GNU/Linux distribution is
allowed to distribute all software that has a license that complies to
the Debian Free Software Guidelines (DFSG) which are available at
http://www.debian.org/social_contract#guidelines
Implizitely all software without a license statement is considered non-free.
So all downloadable code from your sites have to be considered non-free from
our point of vie and even the license statement that is inside the Arb packaged
version which says
LEGAL DISCLAIMER
THIS SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED BY ALEXANDROS STAMATAKIS AND THE INSTITUTE OF
COMPUTER SCIENCE, FOUNDATION FOR RESEARCH AND TECHNOLOGH HELLAS
AND CONTRIBUTORS ``AS IS'' AND ANY EXPRESS OR IMPLIED
WARRANTIES, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, THE IMPLIED WARRANTIES
OF MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE ARE
DISCLAIMED. IN NO EVENT SHALL THE AUTHOR OR CONTRIBUTORS BE
LIABLE FOR ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL, EXEMPLARY,
OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES (INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO,
PROCUREMENT OF SUBSTITUTE GOODS OR SERVICES; LOSS OF USE, DATA,
OR PROFITS; OR BUSINESS INTERRUPTION) HOWEVER CAUSED AND ON
ANY THEORY OF LIABILITY, WHETHER IN CONTRACT, STRICT LIABILITY,
OR TORT (INCLUDING NEGLIGENCE OR OTHERWISE) ARISING IN ANY WAY
OUT OF THE USE OF THIS SOFTWARE, EVEN IF ADVISED OF THE
POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGE. NO COMMERCIAL USE OR COMMERCIAL
REDISTRIBUTION OF THIS SOFTWARE IS AUTHORIZED. ANY PUBLICATION
BASED ON THE USE OF THIS SOFTWARE MUST EXPLICITLY ACKNOWLEDGE ITS
USE AND SHOULD CITE THE APPROPRIATE PAPER(S) LISTED IN THE README
FILE.
is non-free because it says
NO COMMERCIAL USE OR COMMERCIAL REDISTRIBUTION OF THIS SOFTWARE
IS AUTHORIZED.
which is considered as discrimination of distribution. The idea behind
is that no distributor would be allowed to ship Debian DVDs if these would
contain software with this type of license.
So my questions are:
1. Could you please enlighten my view on all these different versions?
2. Could you please add a license statement to your code - prefered a
license that complies to the DFSG. Of course the choice of a license
is your decision but code with no license statement at all sucks and
might backfire at you at one day.
In case you would decide for a free license that would enable us to package
RAxML for Debian we would be happy to include your work into our distribution
which would IMHO be a benefit for RAxML because people all over the world
working in the field of biology and using Debian would immediately learn about
this software.
Kind regards
Andreas.
--
http://fam-tille.de
Reply to: