Mailing-List: contact dev-help@commons.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: "Commons Developers List" <dev@commons.apache.org>
Received-SPF: neutral (nike.apache.org: local policy)
Message-ID: <4FB9F970.1010803@free.fr>
Date: Mon, 21 May 2012 10:14:40 +0200
From: Luc Maisonobe <Luc.Maisonobe@free.fr>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64;
 rv:10.0.3) Gecko/20120329 Icedove/10.0.3
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Commons Developers List <dev@commons.apache.org>
Subject: Re: [math] numerical stability problems of continued fraction
References: <4FB96D62.3080308@gmail.com>
 <CAGRH7HqQcgCwLRJrGTT-BYRQTufWvgfBfLmjYaiCjpqYjwgrvg@mail.gmail.com>
 <4FB9DF0C.8000609@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <4FB9DF0C.8000609@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit

Le 21/05/2012 08:22, Phil Steitz a �crit :
> On 5/20/12 10:32 PM, S�bastien Brisard wrote:
>> Hi Thomas,
>>> This seems to solve all the described problems, but the question remains
>>> if this can be included without problems into CM. The algorithm
>>> description in NR is not in source code but on an higher level.
>>>
>> Looking at the relevant chapter in NR, I don't think there is any
>> license issue (no code provided in NR).
>> However, if you really want to play it safe, the paper by Thompson is
>> available here
>> http://www.fresco.org.uk/papers/Thompson-JCP64p490.pdf
>> I guess downloading it is OK, as www.fresco.org.uk seems to be
>> Thompson's own website.
>> What you could do is conform closely to Thompson's notation, instead
>> of NR's notation.
> 
> +1

I agree too.

> 
> Personally, I would say it is probably OK to implement the algorithm
> based on the high level description if there is no code provided and
> you are just implementing the numerical algorithm.  What NR
> explicitly lays claim to [1] is the implementations they provide in
> code.  In [1], they claim that translations of provided code into
> other languages violates their copyright; whence our tendency to
> avoid looking at their code or implementing anything that we can't
> find another reference for.  If all that you are relying on is a
> high-level description of an algorithm that is documented elsewhere,
> I would say that is fair game.  If you can get and refer to a different reference for the algorithm, as Sebastien suggests, that is what we prefer to do.

Welcome back, Phil!

Luc

> 
> Phil
> 
> [1] http://www.nr.com/licenses/redistribute.html
> 
> 
>>
>> S�bastien
>>
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
>>
>>
> 
> 
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
> 
> 


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org