I realize now I should have CC'ed the mailing list from the start to
have this public. Doing it now for those purposes.
I asked Andy to relicense his code in OF (image and general package)
and he agreed to do it for GPLv3+. I have just made the commit that
does exactly that.
On 5 November 2012 22:04, Andy Adler <[hidden email]> wrote:
> Hi Carnë
> Sorry for the delay.
> I'm happy to see it relicenced under the GPL 3+ if you'd like.
> Thanks for doing this.
> Andy Adler <[hidden email]> +1-613-520-2600x8785
> On 5 November 2012 13:44, Carnë Draug <[hidden email]> wrote:
>> Hi Andy
>> could you please take a look at this soon? I want to make a new
>> release of the image package but the license you wrote for SHA1.cc,
>> bwselect, bwfill and rotate_scale are a blocker. Again, I would
>> recommend that you choose GPLv3+. Otherwise, simplified BSD would work
>> fine. Just write back to me which one and I'll take care of everything
>> On 28 October 2012 14:40, Carnë Draug <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>> Hi Andy
>>> I'm Carnë Draug, current maintainer of the Octave Forge project and
>>> the image package. We have a couple of your functions written by you
>>> in the project. We are very thankful of your contribution but I'm
>>> afraid that the non-standard license you have chosen may become a
>>> problem. Your license text reads:
>>> // Copyright (C) 1999 Andy Adler
>>> // This code has no warrany whatsoever.
>>> // Do what you like with this code as long as you leave this copyright in place.
>>> Could you please use a more standard one? Being able to give it a
>>> recognisable name not only eases our organisation but also its
>>> acceptance by downstream package maintainers such as Debian. From
>>> Debian's upstream guide "Please do not write your own license text if
>>> you can at all avoid it. Depending on your wishes, the GPL, LGPL or a
>>> BSD-style license will most likely be appropriate, and it is far
>>> easier to tell whether something is allowed if we can look at past
>>> discussions of the same text. "
>>> I would prefer if you choose something such as GPLv3+ of course. Your
>>> later contributions to the project were actually under this license,
>>> only your older code shows this license. However, if you wish to keep
>>> the spirit of the current license, some less typical license which
>>> have at least already been revised by the FSF and OSI are (I tried to
>>> sort them in order of how closely they enforce the principles in your
>>> current license):
>>> * simplifiedBSD (the license in this link is the FreeBSD license. The
>>> simplified BSD refers to the same but without the disclaimer at the
>>> bottom) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BSD_license#2-clause_license_.28.22Simplified_BSD_License.22_or_.22FreeBSD_License.22.29
>>> * ICS license http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ISC_license
>>> * Fair license http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_Licence
>>> * WTFPL http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Do_What_The_Fuck_You_Want_To_Public_License
>>> (not the this one is almost public and would also allow to remove the
>>> copyright provided the name is also changed)
>>> The files in question are:
>>> On the file https://sourceforge.net/p/octave/code/11372/tree/trunk/octave-forge/main/image/inst/edge.m
>>> there is also a notice on line 138 mentioning that part of the code
>>> bears is under that same copyright notice.
>>> I'm sorry to bother with such non-scientific things. I'm not a lawyer
>>> myself, but unfortunately things like this need to be made clear.
>>> Thanks in advance,
>>> Carnë Draug
LogMeIn Central: Instant, anywhere, Remote PC access and management.
Stay in control, update software, and manage PCs from one command center
Diagnose problems and improve visibility into emerging IT issues
Automate, monitor and manage. Do more in less time with Central
Octave-dev mailing list
|Free forum by Nabble||Edit this page|