commons-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Luc Maisonobe <...@spaceroots.org>
Subject Re: [Math] About cancelling the vote because of "Scipy" (Was: [CANCEL][VOTE][RC1] ..)
Date Fri, 19 Dec 2014 15:07:44 GMT
Le 19/12/2014 15:45, Gilles a écrit :
> Hi.
> 
> On Fri, 19 Dec 2014 14:19:09 +0100, Luc Maisonobe wrote:
>>> [...]
>>>
>>> This vote will close in 72 hours, at 2014-12-21T23:15:00Z (this is UTC
>>> time).
>>
>> This vote is canceled in order to clean out both LICENSE and NOTICE
>> files.
>>
>> Several attributions were in NOTICE that should not be there, but also
>> the license from a part extracted from Scipy was missing in LICENSE,
>> which is a critical problem.
> 
> I'm not a lawyer...
> But if this is deemed a "critical problem", I don't understand why
> the release process does not always involve a legal review (by a
> lawyer)! ;-}
> 
> As it is, I do not agree that it was a "critical problem" that the
> "LICENSE" file did not contain a/the Scipy license because, when I
> used the referenced code, the source file contained only this:
> 
> # ******NOTICE***************
> # optimize.py module by Travis E. Oliphant
> #
> # You may copy and use this module as you see fit with no
> # guarantee implied provided you keep this notice in all copies.
> # *****END NOTICE************
> 
> Without hairy interpretation, it would seem to me that the "NOTICE"
> file was indeed the right place for giving credit, as requested.
> 
> Furthermore there was no license file among the Debian-packaged
> files of Scipy.
> Neither Python nor Scipy is a dependency for Commons Math.
> Neither source nor binary code is redistributed.
> 
> The Python code was used in the same way that we use code published
> on Wikipedia, MathWorld, or other references (a.o. "R") that provide
> algorithm descriptions; yet I don't see any of their license or
> "terms of use" in the "LICENCE" file.
> 
> Hence, why should the Scipy license be mentioned in "LICENSE"?

Because of this:

  <http://www.scipy.org/scipylib/license.html>

It is a classical BSD-like license, and as such must be in the LICENSE
file, just as the other ones. Fortunately, it is a classical one.

> 
> Please clarify the situation for this specific case, so that we
> can learn where we can stop spending time on legalese nonsense.

Hope this helps.

best regards,
Luc

> 
> 
> Regards,
> Gilles
> 
>>
>> Thanks to everyone who contributed to the review.
>>
>> best regards,
>> Luc
> 
> 
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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


Mime
View raw message