LIcence clarification

[GoogleCodeExporter]

Dear author,

We used your code to implement TAXOMO, a taxonomy-driven modeler for
sequence mining. I would like to make the code publicly available.  

I contacted you some time ago for a clarification about the type of license
JAHMM is distributed. On the download page I found that  the code is
licensed under a BSD license, but looking in the underlying source file ,
the license file in the code says its licensed under the GPL (I looked in
the v0.6.1 src zip file). 

I can not license my code since this problem. Could you please confirm that
all the code is licensed under the BSD license.

Thanks a lot, 
Debora Donato

Original issue reported on code.google.com by deb.don...@gmail.com on 8 Apr 2010 at 7:02

[GoogleCodeExporter]

As licensed -- It seems that no one can use this code at all.  This is more 
than a 
regular defect.  Can you fix the licensing so that this code can be used?  

Original comment by tenor...@gmail.com on 20 Apr 2010 at 5:35

[GoogleCodeExporter]

Hello,
I am not the author, BUT i guess it should be the "BSD license". GPL looks like 
the
old licence. Probably it just was not altered after the change to the new 
license modell.

The old website (http://www.run.montefiore.ulg.ac.be/~francois/software/jahmm/) 
shows
the following text:

"
Jahmm has a new home!

Jahmm is moving to a new home! Check out the new website:
http://jahmm.googlecode.com/
It's now available under the New BSD license!

Making Jahmm available as a Google Code project brings exciting new features 
such as
a discussion group, a wiki, and a freely available source revision system. This 
new
infrastructure should greatly ease the community feedback and allow Jahmm users 
to
help each other.

All this is great news!

I plan to deprecate this site as soon as all the information available here 
have been
copied to the new website. 
"

===>> "It's now available under the New BSD license!" should solve this 
problem?!

Original comment by vamos.be...@gmail.com on 27 Apr 2010 at 9:21

[GoogleCodeExporter]

Vamos, I think you are right in suggesting that the author indicated intent 
that this 
should be licensed under BSD.  But I find GPL text in the header of some of the 
.Java 
files (and the README). There is a conflict between the files being licensed 
under 
GPL and the project being listed as BSD.  If the author really intended this 
work to 
be licensed under BSD (as he indicates), then he needs to license his code to 
indicate this.  You and I (as observers) cannot apply the license we want onto 
his 
code.  Only he (as license holder) can reconcile what he wants with what he 
published.

Is he still interested in the success and usage of this code?  or has he 
abandoned 
this?  If the latter -- then all the more reason to be concerned about using 
this 
code.  I encourage him to respond here so that people who wish to use his code 
contribution can do so.

Gil

Original comment by tenor...@gmail.com on 28 Apr 2010 at 7:22

[GoogleCodeExporter]

[deleted comment]

[GoogleCodeExporter]

but it is an official and clear statement from the author...

but of course it would be nice to hear from him :)

Original comment by vamos.be...@gmail.com on 29 Apr 2010 at 8:12

[GoogleCodeExporter]

The author has not responded to this thread, but it appears that text 
referencing the GPL license is no longer in the  project and that the 
declaration of the BSD license is now consistent with the code.

The author has the right to license the code however he wants.  But if there is 
both BSD and GPL text in the code -- well, it's just confusing as to what the 
real license is.  I'm glad to see this clear up.  Using the new BSD license 
make it easier to use this code for more applications -- which is great.  And I 
thank the author for this.  His acknowledgement on this issue thread would be 
most welcome too.  

Original comment by tenor...@gmail.com on 26 Sep 2010 at 4:39

[GoogleCodeExporter]

I confirm that the licensing scheme is indeed New BSD.  It used to be licensed 
under GPL; I have apparently forgot to replace the header in some files, sorry 
about that.

Jean-Marc

Original comment by jm.francois on 20 Mar 2011 at 12:09