On Tue, 2003-05-27 at 11:00, Mark R. Diggory wrote:
Basically what this is saying is "talk to us". ACM is suggesting involvement and acknowledgment of their efforts in organizing and archiving these algorithms...<snip>...Open Source Apache project and the legal bindings they would want in such a relationship..
-1
I welcome greater participation especially from the ACM, but I also
encourage people not to "jump the gun". Commons-math is a sandbox
component, nothing guarantees promotion to Commons proper. Commons-math
is not attempting to be a repository for all numerical algorithms - at
least not in the current proposal.
+1 Yes I do agree that we should not focus on being a repository for all numerical algoithms.
The scope as defined in the proposal is very limited to encourageIMHO, I don't consider this discussion to be "jumping the gun" or out of scope of the issues realted to this project. My primary point is that if your interested in using/developing code based on an algorithm published by the ACM, that instead of looking at the license and say, nope, can't do that. You contact the responsible parties at ACM and ask them directly concerning if you can apply it in this case. Seems overly "assuming" to do otherwise. Finally, I wanted to state is that there was also a probible future of activity between ACM and Apache Math developers considering such cases.
developers to submit patches focused on a small set of realistic goals.
aimed at a real-world requirements.
I'd like to see us explore an idea of providing an interface to otherYes, I think that would be intersting, I suspect in the future we will see cases wher ethis can be applied.
implementations of algorithms (i.e. commons-logging), but I think that
is something for *the future*. Right now, we need focus, unit tests,
pages of detailed documentation, and attention to detail.
Cheers, -Mark
--------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
