Tim Jenness <[log in to unmask]> writes:
> On Fri, Feb 10, 2012 at 1:12 PM, OlŠµ Streicher
>> I cannot include obfuscated code in a "main" debian package (and this is
>> what I want). I even cannot include AST in "non-free" since I will get
>> immediate complaints about its license.
> And I keep saying that I'm actively working on it. We've actively
> ported 36 of the 53 routines used by AST to C via PAL+SOFA. The next
> release of AST will not include the SLA code. The SOFA licence says
> that the sofa code can be redistributed so the AST tar ball will have
> a sofa subdir with the subset of sofa needed by AST.
I have no problem to update AST to use PAL+SOFA (although it takes me to
build two more packages) once such a version is released. Since I will
anyway take some time to get astlib packaged (it is quite huge, and I
have to fiddle out which libraries are useful and how I should package
them) we will see whether the version will then use PAL or SLA. I will
just take the released version. I still have to check the SOFA license
with Debian-legal.
BTW, would it be possible to provide PAL packages as you do with AST?
This would make packaging and updating much easier.
In the moment, it is not, but my SLA/Fortran packaging is almost
complete; so why not just publish it? It may be useful also for others
who still didn't make the switch.
> I don't think the 2 SLA routines in funtools are licensed GPL but for
> all I know Pat gave permission for those two to be reused with the
> funtools licence and with his attribution stripped (or maybe they were
> sourced from the fortran - you'd have to ask the funtools programmer).
I here believe the funtools programmer, except that Patrick would
complain here. I just cannot follow each line of code and if there may
be an private agreement between the programmers.
Best regards
Ole
|