krasileva
commented
6 years ago Hi Peter,
This is great. Thank you for catching this. I am happy with MIT license and we will look how to implement it as soon as possible.
Best wishes,
Ksenia
Ksenia Krasileva Group Leader
[cid:image001.png@01D35ED5.DD9AA1A0]
Norwich Research Park Norwich Norfolk NR4 7UZ +44 (0) 1603 450 2946 Ksenia.Krasileva@earlham.ac.ukmailto:Ksenia.Krasileva@earlham.ac.uk
www.earlham.ac.uk/krasileva-grouphttp://www.earlham.ac.uk/krasileva-group www.tsl.ac.uk/groups/krasileva-grouphttp://www.tsl.ac.uk/groups/krasileva-group @kseniakrasileva
www.earlham.ac.ukhttp://www.earlham.ac.uk/ www.tsl.ac.ukhttp://www.tsl.ac.uk/
[cid:image002.png@01D35ED5.DD9AA1A0]https://twitter.com/EarlhamInst[cid:image003.png@01D35ED5.DD9AA1A0]https://www.facebook.com/EarlhamInst/
From: Peter Cock notifications@github.com Reply-To: krasileva-group/plant_rgenes reply@reply.github.com Date: Thursday, 16 November 2017 at 12:09 To: krasileva-group/plant_rgenes plant_rgenes@noreply.github.com Cc: Subscribed subscribed@noreply.github.com Subject: [krasileva-group/plant_rgenes] No license stated for the scripts (#7)
Quoting the README file,
Set of scripts to annotate Pfam domains and extract NLR plant immune receptors and their architectures as published in Sarris et al BMC Biology 2016: https://bmcbiol.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12915-016-0228-7
As far as I could tell, there is no mention of any license for the scripts provided in this repository, nor in the paper Sarris et al.
BMC do expect this information to be included in the paper https://bmcbiol.biomedcentral.com/submission-guidelines/preparing-your-manuscript/software but since that was missed, the best option now is to clearly add a license to the repository.
See https://help.github.com/articles/adding-a-license-to-a-repository/ for GitHub's guidelines.
You may be constrained by your employer's policy, but I would urge you to pick a standard open source licence. My personal recommendation would be a BSD or MIT license (both very short and liberal). GitHub provides some guidance on which license to pick https://help.github.com/articles/licensing-a-repository/
If you do open source the scripts, it would be legally possible for the bioinformatics community to package them for automated installation (e.g. I would look at doing this for BioConda https://bioconda.github.io/ - see https://www.biorxiv.org/content/early/2017/10/27/207092 for background).
— You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHubhttps://github.com/krasileva-group/plant_rgenes/issues/7, or mute the threadhttps://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AB2D2OOEIVnBpvwCxST_RLS1HR-pYOlRks5s3CXsgaJpZM4QgZG3.
Quoting the README file,
As far as I could tell, there is no mention of any license for the scripts provided in this repository, nor in the paper Sarris et al.
BMC do expect this information to be included in the paper https://bmcbiol.biomedcentral.com/submission-guidelines/preparing-your-manuscript/software but since that was missed, the best option now is to clearly add a license to the repository.
See https://help.github.com/articles/adding-a-license-to-a-repository/ for GitHub's guidelines.
You may be constrained by your employer's policy, but I would urge you to pick a standard open source licence. My personal recommendation would be a BSD or MIT license (both very short and liberal). GitHub provides some guidance on which license to pick https://help.github.com/articles/licensing-a-repository/
If you do open source the scripts, it would be legally possible for the bioinformatics community to package them for automated installation (e.g. I would look at doing this for BioConda https://bioconda.github.io/ - see https://www.biorxiv.org/content/early/2017/10/27/207092 for background).