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
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, 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
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, 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 RD about this. I will send another note. -- Nothing is perfekt. Certainly not me. Success to failure. Just a matter of degrees.
