Re: Calendrical Calculations and licensing
On Wed, 15 Jan 2003, Dave Rolsky wrote: > On Wed, 15 Jan 2003, srl wrote: > > > Rich Bowen emailed them at one point and got an agreement from them > > that he could implement the algorithms and release the code freely, > > as long as he let them publish the code in the next version of the > > book. Last I heard, he was confirming that understanding with > > them. > > Oh yeah, he did say that, didn't he? If that could be extended from Rich > to "anyone working on the Perl DateTime" project, then we'd be all set. > Though I still think that either their license should be reworded (cause > it doesn't reflect their intent) or their intent is _evil_ (if the license > really means what I think it means). I've not yet received a response from R&D about this. I will send another note. -- Nothing is perfekt. Certainly not me. Success to failure. Just a matter of degrees.
Re: Calendrical Calculations and licensing
On Wed, 15 Jan 2003, Jonathan Scott Duff wrote: > I agree, but you forgot step 0: Ask the authors if they'd be willing > to release the code under an open source license. It doesn't hurt to > ask and if they refuse, then we just continue ignoring the book for > implementation advice. I did mention that, actually. Rich is already working on it, as Shane pointed out. But 1 & 2 need to be in effect until we have that permission, not after its denied. -dave /*=== House Absolute Consulting www.houseabsolute.com ===*/
Re: Calendrical Calculations and licensing
On Wed, 15 Jan 2003, srl wrote: > Rich Bowen emailed them at one point and got an agreement from them > that he could implement the algorithms and release the code freely, > as long as he let them publish the code in the next version of the > book. Last I heard, he was confirming that understanding with > them. Oh yeah, he did say that, didn't he? If that could be extended from Rich to "anyone working on the Perl DateTime" project, then we'd be all set. Though I still think that either their license should be reworded (cause it doesn't reflect their intent) or their intent is _evil_ (if the license really means what I think it means). -dave /*=== House Absolute Consulting www.houseabsolute.com ===*/
Re: Calendrical Calculations and licensing
Abigail wrote: I don't think you quoted the part where they put a restriction on the algorithms (which, AFAIK, are not copyrightable or patentable; they fall in the same categories as ideas, which can't be copyrighted either). Ummm, at least in the US, algorythms _can_ be patented. See GIF patent: http://www.delphion.com/details?pn=US04558302__ and Shure has a patent for DSP: http://www.shure.com/news/pressreleases/pr-dsppatent.html and finally this extract: under U.S. patent law a mathematical algorithm is not patentable if the patent claim preempts the entire algorithm, but may be patentable if it applies the algorithm to accomplish a specific technical purpose. All of these patents may be bogus and could be overturned by a court; nonetheless, it is technically legal to patent algorithms under some circumstances in the U.S. Other countries vary... John -- John Peacock Director of Information Research and Technology Rowman & Littlefield Publishing Group 4720 Boston Way Lanham, MD 20706 301-459-3366 x.5010 fax 301-429-5747
Re: Calendrical Calculations and licensing
On Wed, Jan 15, 2003 at 02:43:57PM -0600, Dave Rolsky wrote: > Because of this, I think we need to take the following steps: > > 1. No implementation should explicitly use algorithms from CC. > > 2. No discussion of implementation matters should refer to Calendrical > Calculations. For example, don't tell someone else "go read chapter X". > Because if they read chapter X and then implement it, they can't > distribute it. I agree, but you forgot step 0: Ask the authors if they'd be willing to release the code under an open source license. It doesn't hurt to ask and if they refuse, then we just continue ignoring the book for implementation advice. -Scott -- Jonathan Scott Duff [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Calendrical Calculations and licensing
On Wed, Jan 15, 2003 at 09:56:50PM +0100, Abigail ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: > On Wed, Jan 15, 2003 at 02:43:57PM -0600, Dave Rolsky wrote: > > > > Then it says "The Authors' public service intent is more than liberal > > than suggested by the License below ...", and goes on to explicitly > > mention web sites and academic usage. However, no mention is made of > > Free Software style distribution of source code. > > > > The license in the book reads: > > > > LICENSE: The Authors grant you a license for personal use only. This > > means that for strictly personal use you may copy and use the code and > > keep a backup or archival copy also. Any other uses, including > > without limitation, allowing the code or its output to be accessed, > > used, or available to others, are not permitted. > > > > > > This is _really_, _really_ bad. Not only are they explicitly limiting use > > of the code in the book, they are also limiting use of the _algorithms_. > > I don't think you quoted the part where they put a restriction on the > algorithms (which, AFAIK, are not copyrightable or patentable; they > fall in the same categories as ideas, which can't be copyrighted either). Rich Bowen emailed them at one point and got an agreement from them that he could implement the algorithms and release the code freely, as long as he let them publish the code in the next version of the book. Last I heard, he was confirming that understanding with them. srl -- Shane R. Landrum [EMAIL PROTECTED]__o "In the end, you write the book that grabs you-\<, by the throat and demands to be written." - Salman Rushdie (*)/(*)
