[EMBOSS] Files included in EMBOSS but licensed ...

Adam Sjøgren asjo at koldfront.dk
Sat Jul 30 19:34:30 UTC 2011

On Sat, 30 Jul 2011 14:01:58 -0500, Chris wrote:

> I don't understand the logic behind why data would be considered
> software, unless one is using a very fuzzy definition of 'software'.
> Is this strictly a packaging issue, e.g. any data packaged with source
> makes it 'software'? Or just the fact that such data is licensed?
> Would a package of just data/docs (no code) be allowed?

  "The DFSG is focused on software, but the word itself is unclear -
   some apply it to everything that can be expressed as a stream of
   bits, while a minority considers it to refer to just computer
   programs. Also, the existence of PostScript, executable scripts,
   sourced documents, etc, greatly muddies the second definition. Thus,
   to break the confusion, in June 2004 the Debian project decided to
   explicitly apply the same principles to software documentation,
   multimedia data and other content. The non-program content of Debian
   began to comply with the DFSG more strictly in Debian 4.0 (released
   in April 2007) and subsequent releases."
    - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DFSG#Non-.22software.22_content

So no.

> I agree with Peter's point, Uniprot and other databases license data
> this way for very good (and well-intentioned) reasons.

Several people have mentioned the existence of these good reasons for
not allowing derived works when it comes to science/databases/biology; I
wonder what those reasons are?

Just curious.

> http://sciencecommons.org/resources/faq/database-protocol/

> Note there is now a 'Database Protocol' (last link) that recommends a
> different license; that page nicely summarizes the history the whole
> Creative Commons licensing affair and the issues of using a Creative
> Commons license re: databases, mainly due to the issue Peter mentioned
> above, that databases != software. Uniprot doesn't use this as of yet
> (so it doesn't solve the problem at hand), but it's possible this may
> change.

It sounds like Science Commons' Open Access Data Protocol means putting
the data in the public domain, which would mean that derived works would
very much be allowed?

This link explains the protocol:

 * http://sciencecommons.org/projects/publishing/open-access-data-protocol/

  Best regards,


 "Good car to drive after a war"                              Adam Sjøgren
                                                         asjo at koldfront.dk

More information about the EMBOSS mailing list