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"?
Please clarify the situation for this specific case, so that we
can learn where we can stop spending time on legalese nonsense.
Regards,
Gilles
Thanks to everyone who contributed to the review.
best regards,
Luc
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org
