Re: Bug#875876: RFS: python-dtcwt/0.12.0-1

2017-09-20 Thread Ian Jackson
Ghislain Vaillant writes ("Re: Bug#875876: RFS: python-dtcwt/0.12.0-1"): > FYI, here is the interpretation of the license by the upstream author. I > asked about it back when I did the initial release, and no issue was > raised by the FTP team. > > https://github.com/rjw57/dtcwt/issues/109

Re: does MUSIC (cosmology package) qualify as free under DFSG?

2017-09-20 Thread Boud Roukema
hi Ian, all, On Wed, 20 Sep 2017, Ian Jackson wrote: I know that in some other cases upstreams have been persuaded to change such licence conditions into non-binding imprecations. In this case that would make the resulting software GPL-compatible, which would be very nice. Perhaps upstream

does MUSIC (cosmology package) qualify as free under DFSG?

2017-09-20 Thread Boud Roukema
hi Debian Legal, I would like to use the MUSIC cosmological initial conditions software https://bitbucket.org/ohahn/music and potentially (no promises) ITP it as a Debian package. [Debian presently has a much older package with overlapping functionality to MUSIC: mpgrafic. I would prefer not

Re: does MUSIC (cosmology package) qualify as free under DFSG?

2017-09-20 Thread Ian Jackson
Hi, debian-science. debian-legal had a query about a program which had a citation requirement in its licence. See below. What's our usual approach ? Boud Roukema writes ("does MUSIC (cosmology package) qualify as free under DFSG?"): > I would like to use the MUSIC cosmological initial

Re: Bug#875876: RFS: python-dtcwt/0.12.0-1

2017-09-20 Thread Herbert Fortes
Em 20-09-2017 10:56, Ian Jackson escreveu: > Herbert Fortes writes ("Re: Bug#875876: RFS: python-dtcwt/0.12.0-1"): >> [Ian Jackson:] >>> So I think that the situation is perfectly clear. Algorithms are not >>> covered by copyright (anywhere). The upstream author is just being >>> over-cautious

Re: Bug#875876: RFS: python-dtcwt/0.12.0-1

2017-09-20 Thread Ian Jackson
Herbert Fortes writes ("Re: Bug#875876: RFS: python-dtcwt/0.12.0-1"): > [Ian Jackson:] > > So I think that the situation is perfectly clear. Algorithms are not > > covered by copyright (anywhere). The upstream author is just being > > over-cautious in leaving in that notice. > > Why being

Re: Bug#875876: RFS: python-dtcwt/0.12.0-1

2017-09-20 Thread Herbert Fortes
> > So I think that the situation is perfectly clear. Algorithms are not > covered by copyright (anywhere). The upstream author is just being > over-cautious in leaving in that notice. > Why being "over-cautions" if the append is useless. That's the term I should use at first. It is the

Re: Bug#875876: RFS: python-dtcwt/0.12.0-1

2017-09-20 Thread Herbert Fortes
My typo: -over-cautions +over-cautious