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

[Norwid B. <nb...@ya...>]

Dear Dominik,

On Sun, 21 Nov 2021 00:01:24 +0100
Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski <do...@gr...> wrote:

> > «You may opt to apply the terms of the ordinary GNU General Public
> > Licence instead of this [bespoken] Licence to a given copy of the
> > Library. [...]  Once this change [InChI license -> GPL v2] is made in
> > a given copy [of yours], it is irreversible for that copy, [and any
> > subsequent derivatives].»
> > ```
> > (square brackets enclose an interpretation of the text by mine).  
> 
> The problem is I need to rename it then and I really would like to avoid
> that because then Fedora maintainers would need to patch their packages
> to refer to this not-inchi package.
> 

For your information, the present approach for Debian/DebiChem on
this is the following:  On suggestion, Andrius Merkys thankfully used
the libraries to be included in package inchi (1.03+dfsg-4).[1]  As a
result, e.g., in Debian 12/bookworm [testing], it is possible to call
the functionalities from the CLI in a pattern like, e.g.

```bash
inchi_main -tabbed -auxnone -key example.sdf
```

The different naming to offer the (June 2010/version 1.03 [sic!])
subset of functionality /at all/ indeed is one detail he would like
to resolve as soon as InChI decides in favor of a license suitable
for Debian; preferentially altogether with an update (e.g., to
process .sdf (v3000) as they are, without intermediate reformat in
OpenBabel).

From previous posts and some (limited) testing with assignments by
InChI trust's reference binary as standard, I speculate the demanded
move could initiate updates and improvements in other packages, too;
examples include OpenBabel and RDKit (to varying extent, their
assignments differ vs. «InChI trust's InChI»).

Regards,

Norwid

[1] https://tracker.debian.org/pkg/inchi