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

[Richard K. <ri...@in...>]

Thanks for the additional discussion on the license - I should have summarised at the end of the Feb thread

Given the discussions, I'm personally comfortable with us no longer using a license to try and enforce the standard, but suggest the appropriate license choice gets wrapped into our future development considerations, so we get wide input into the choice. We have a bugfix 1.061 under testing, but it is probably not sensible to make a license switch without wider consultation and agreement with our implementers.

I'm delighted that we've appointed Gerd Blanke as our Technical Director, who'll be working alongside Igor and others to look at our future development framework, so suggest that licensing should be considered as part of that work. We've also appointed Rudy Potenzone as our Marketing & Outreach Director (I'm delighted about that too), and Rudy will be working with Gerd and Steve Heller as we're looking to extend the applications and audience for InChI - so you're likely to hear more from them both.

Best wishes

Richard




________________________________
From: Norwid Behrnd via InChI-discuss <inc...@li...>
Sent: 13 October 2021 15:43
To: Andrew Dalke <da...@da...>
Cc: inc...@li... <inc...@li...>
Subject: Re: [InChI-discuss] InChI, suggestion license adjustment

On Wed, 13 Oct 2021 15:30:23 +0200
Andrew Dalke <da...@da...> wrote:

> > the assigned license is not compatible with one of those Debian requests.
>
> Could you elaborate?

There is a separate exchange with Andrius Merkys, one of the DebiChem
maintainers of the inchi packages that I condense into «he would very
much like to initiate the update, however by license he currently may
not» (as by October 12, 2021).

In addition, reading the thread

«InChI license and Open Source (was: Release of InChI software version
1.04)»

initiated by Michael Banck on February 19th[1] requesting a
clarification, with with Greg Landrum's later reply

"Based upon this reading/understanding, it looks like I'm going to
have to remove InChI support for all binaries of the RDKit."

and additional contributions by Richard Kidd, Geoffrey Hutchison, and
by you I retain this: if InChI trust had used and kept a Debian
compatible license, Debian would have updated the libraries in their
own repositories since 2010 ongoing.  Implementation of InChI in
other applications would have been easier/would have been
permissible [again].  (Or, one files successfully for a license
separate to the one on the web site.)

So far, I identify a suggestion by you how this could be resolved by
change of the license statement (no functional change of the
library/InChI algorithm).  If this were resolved successfully, the
thread initiated by Michael Banck's would end with an explicit note
by him, or Richard Kidd (in the name of InChI trust), or you, or
someone else. Or, doesn't it?

Norwid

[1]  https://sourceforge.net/p/inchi/mailman/inchi-discuss/thread/602f80ff.1c69fb81.af992.8c96%40mx.google.com/#msg37223070


_______________________________________________
InChI-discuss mailing list
InC...@li...
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/inchi-discuss