4/6/03.
Chaps,
>> ... The provenance of Figaro is
>> hopelessly complicated and most of it does not belong to Starlink.
>> ... I'd be a
>> bit unhappy about any blanket statement at the top of the Starlink
>> collection of the `I'm the conditions which apply unless the individual
>> packages say otherwise' variety (since, Figaro doesn't say otherwise).
>
> Maybe we need to put an "otherwise" in Figaro then!
That would solve the problem, though whenever I've thought about this
problem (and I've not thought about it often, or for long, or very hard!)
I've not been able to come up with with a form of words I'm happy with.
I suppose for the copyright we could say something like:
Most of Figaro was not written by Starlink and the copyright remains
with the original authors.
I don't see how we can put any licence on it, since we don't own it.
In fact I suppose there is an argument that we shouldn't even be
distributing it, but that way madness lies.
I like Norman's idea of putting an up-front discussion of the
uncertainties over the provenance of much of the software in the top-level
statement about copyright and licensing.
Enough, I'd better do some work...
cheers,
Clive.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Clive Davenhall Institute for Astronomy,
e-mail (internet, JANET): acd @ roe.ac.uk Royal Observatory Edinburgh,
fax from within the UK: 0131-668-8416 Blackford Hill, Edinburgh,
fax from overseas: +44-131-668-8416 EH9 3HJ, Scotland.
|