Re: [License-review] Chroma license / United States Government Contract

2013-12-18 Thread Andreas Cadhalpun
Hi, On 17.12.2013 09:15, Steve Langasek wrote: There is only an issue with distributing the bundled work if you distribute it as a binary. They still ship old binaries [1] and in the same .deb file they ship the source with the other_libs directory containing third party libraries, some of

Re: Re: [License-review] Chroma license / United States Government Contract

2013-12-16 Thread Andreas Cadhalpun
[Resending this, as my last mail seems not to have made it to the list.] Hi Ben, thanks for your review of the license. As I found it unsatisfactory, that chroma is distributed under a non-free license, I took a closer look at the source code searching for other licenses. Chroma

Re: [License-review] Chroma license / United States Government Contract

2013-12-16 Thread Andreas Cadhalpun
On 16.12.2013 21:59, Ben Finney wrote: That's roughly correct; the act which requires licensing the whole work under GPL is to distribute a “derivative work” of the prior GPL-licensed work; see URL:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Derivative_work. They distribute source tarballs of chroma [1]

[License-review] Chroma license / United States Government Contract

2013-12-08 Thread Andreas Cadhalpun
Hi, I'm using the Chroma software for lattice QCD simulations [1]. In the past I downloaded the source code from git (e.g. [2]) and compiled the binaries on my machine, but I think it would be nice to have a Debian package for it. The paper about chroma [3] states that Chroma is an open