Re: [InChI-discuss] InChI, suggestion license adjustment

[Andrew D. <da...@da...>]

Hi Michael,

On Oct 13, 2021, at 16:06, Michael Banck <mb...@de...> wrote:
> |15. If you modify the Library in any way whatsoever, the output from any
> |such modified Library may not be referred to as ‘InChI’ or any similar
> |name. Any attempt to refer to such output as ‘InChI’ will automatically
> |terminate your rights under this Licence.
> 
> See also the discussion on this list from February.

Ahh, right.

Looking at the previous discussion, I see my comment:

  I agree with Alex's reading that there would appear to be a
  legitimate way to convert from "this Licence" to the "GNU
  General Public Licence"

   In principle one could modify the code to generate "VaPuV"
   instead of "InChI" in the output, relicense it to GPLv3,
   then change it back to "InChI".

You should be aware that the InChI Trust controls the UK trademark
for the word "INCHI", so my proposal from Feb. is probably bad advice.

Details at https://trademarks.ipo.gov.uk/ipo-tmcase/page/Results/1/UK00909110206

Trademark coverage includes use in:

  o Computer software; computer software for generating representations
    of chemical structures

  o Design and development of computer hardware and software; research
    relating to chemistry; research relating to science; provision of
    information relating to chemistry, biochemistry, chemical physics
   and physical chemistry;

This is the Firefox->IceWeasel issue Debian is well aware of.

I suspect you want both license adjustment and explicit trademark permission.

I also suspect the latter will be difficult, given the goals of InChI.

> On Feb 19, 2021, at 14:11, Richard Kidd <ri...@in...> wrote:
> 
> • we need to maintain the standard - which is what the 'don't modify the library if you want to call it InChI' is there for


You wrote:

> Debian could ship inchi under the GPL, but which program (other than
> OpenBabel, which is GPLv2 due to historical reasons) would use that?
> Certainly not RDKit or other non-GPL ones.


Norwid only requested compatibility with Debian licensing requirements.

DataWarrior, another package Norwid referenced, is GPLv3.

RDKit does not bundle InChI in its source distribution. This is deliberate. The configuration step (by default) downloads the InChI source.

Debian could provide pre-built RDKit binary packages with a bundled InChI, with the entire package distributed under the GPL.

I do not know how existing binary package distributions handle this detail. I am pretty sure the InChI Trust doesn't care to assert its licensing details for this case.

Regards,

				Andrew
				da...@da...