Four files do contain old licensing statement

[tillea]

Hi,

since the README file contains a free license there are four remaining files featuring the old licensing statement:
* 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 ([email protected]) *
These files are

1. inc/cheapcgi.h
2. inc/hmmstats.h
3. inc/portimpl.h
4. inc/sig.h

While I assume this might be by accident and not really intended fixing this would be important to clarify the bug reported to the Debian package r-cran-rtracklayer which is using this code. It would be great if you could fix the license text inside these files.

Kind regards

     Andreas.

[jstjohn]

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.

[tillea]

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] #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:
#2 (comment)

http://fam-tille.de

[tillea]

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 ([email protected])
  *

On Mon, May 9, 2016 at 11:09 AM, Andreas Tille [email protected] 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] #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:
#2 (comment)

http://fam-tille.de

[tillea]

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 ([email protected])
  *

On Mon, May 9, 2016 at 11:09 AM, Andreas Tille [email protected] 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] #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:
#2 (comment)

http://fam-tille.de

http://fam-tille.de