> Perhaps add, `unless a statement to the contrary appears within the
> Software itself'.
Sounds reasonable to me, provided the statements to the contrary are
actually present.
> I can't recall if there _are_ any bits that aren't
> copyright CCLRC, but this would cover us. Also, shouldn't the date
> be 1983-2003, or whenever the oldest bit of software is -- the date
1980 in theory.
> We haven't been through all the software changing whatever licence
> statements there may be, so perhaps we should say something like
Good point.
> > "The authors acknowledge the data analysis facilities provided by the
> > Starlink Project which is run by CCLRC on behalf of PPARC."
At last this is being discussed. This reads like the old one from the
days when Starlink was both hardware and software. In fact isn't the
old one? Can "data analysis facilities" be simplified to "software"?
I suppose that might be deemed to exclude user support. I don't like
just "analysis" as it excludes "reduction", which is odd when we've
just submitted a bid to supply lots of reduction frameworks for ESO
instruments.
> Is there a canonical Starlink publication which folk can
> put in a bibliography, similar to what IRAF users can do
> <http://iraf.noao.edu/iraf/web/faq/FAQsec01.html#1020>? Actually,
> I know there isn't, but ought there to be?
This is what I was proposing in a recent message. The footnote
particularly stands out even though it's in small text.
Malcolm
|