#6491: [with spkg, positive review pending] Modular Cohomology Rings of Finite
p-Groups
-------------------------------+--------------------------------------------
Reporter: SimonKing | Owner: SimonKing
Type: enhancement | Status: assigned
Priority: major | Milestone: sage-4.1.1
Component: optional packages | Keywords: cohomology ring finite p-group
Reviewer: | Author: Simon King
Merged: |
-------------------------------+--------------------------------------------
Comment(by wdj):
Replying to [comment:28 SimonKing]:
> I am about to produce a version 1.0.1, that will essentially be an
attempt to fix the license.
>
> - I took the COPYING file from the MeatAxe 2.2.4 and put it on top of
our modified MeatAxe version. Since the licence allows redistribution of
the modified work, as long as the COPYING file isn't touched, this should
be alright.
> - The C-code of David Green got a similar COPYING file. So, this is GPL
2+ as well.
> - Each of my files starts with a header, referring to the GPL, version
2 or later.
> - I think it should be appropriate to put the data bases under a
Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike licence.
>
> __Questions:__
>
> - In order to put the data bases under the mentioned licence, does it
suffice to state
> it in the documentation, as I now did in
http://sage.math.washington.edu/home/SimonKing/Cohomology/#licence ?
> You suggested to put a 'LICENSE.txt' into the package; but the major
part of the data base is not
> included in the package, but only available in the internet. So, I
thought that the package
> documentation is the right place for stating the licence. Is this OK? Or
perhaps I should add
> some words concerning the data bases in the file 'SPKG.txt', that has a
licence section anyway?
I'm not crazy about putting the database license statement in the docs or
in SPKG.txt, though it
is fine to mention them there. I prefer a separate file, say in the same
directory or tarball
the database is stored in. I don't think it's important enough to argue
about.
> - It is also stated that the documentation itself is under CC
Attribution-Share Alike. But:
> The documentation is mainly auto-generated using the source code of our
package, which means that
> the documentation is derived work from something that is under GPL 2+.
So, is it legal to use another
> licence for the documentation, or am I shooting myself in the foot?
The code snippets are (I presume) yours and you can relicense or dual
license it as you wish.
BTW, I think "licence" should be "license".
>
> Once theses questions are addressed, I will put a version 1.0.1 of our
package online, so that hopefully the last reviewing steps can be done.
>
> Best regards,
> Simon
--
Ticket URL: <http://trac.sagemath.org/sage_trac/ticket/6491#comment:29>
Sage <http://sagemath.org/>
Sage: Creating a Viable Open Source Alternative to Magma, Maple, Mathematica,
and MATLAB
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"sage-trac" group.
To post to this group, send email to [email protected]
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
[email protected]
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/sage-trac?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
