 |
 |
Ole Streicher wrote: > The discussion is still not finished yet, bit it seems that > SOFA is not dfsg compilant and therefore cannot got into Debian. I think the SOFA Board will be relaxed about this. Anyway, why can't it go in contrib? It's not obfuscated this time. > They dont allow that a changed version uses the same function > names. This is because hobbyist changes may well cause damage - this stuff is extremely slippery - and a recipient would naturally assume the IAU screwed up. > This contradicts §3 of the DFSG. You might want to look at pragmatic easing of some of the DFSG restrictions. Debian seems far more doctrinaire than other Linux distributions. > It may be evaded by renaming all function names in the library > once, f.e. use the prefix IAU_ instead of iau, If using "IAU_" is SOFA-compliant this is an oversight, and to exploit it would in my opinion be sharp practice. The *spirit* of the stipulation is perfectly clear.) But if you choose something else entirely, then I think what you are proposing is perfectly acceptable, and what SOFA intended. Much depends on whether you value the continuing cooperation of the authors of the software. > This "you must rename the lib" is IMO completely stupid: anyone > can write his own library and name the functions starting with > "iau" (or "sla" or whatever), and neither IAU nor Patrick are > legally able to stop them. There are lots of things that are not actually illegal but are nevertheless avoided by people with manners. The intention behind the stipulation is clear. > These completely independent libraries are in no manner better > than changed versions of the original libraries. You misunderstand: the restriction is because the changed version may well be worse. > In my opinion, this is a funny rule, It is not unlike the convention that exists for scientific papers. If Paper B uses results directly from Paper A, then the former must cite the latter. If Paper C uses added-value results from Paper B, then it is OK just to cite Paper B; but if it uses Paper A results directly it must cite Paper A. > If someone now publishes a paper, based on some DS9 images, how > should he know whether the result was done using SOFA? There are practical limits to compliance, but an appropriate chain of acknowledgements should not be hard to arrange. > It is questionable whether this is a legal restriction at all Possibly not, but it's what well-mannered scientists actually do. > I tried to contact the SOFA board, but still didn't get an answer. A reply has been drafted (not by me) and is in circulation. You can be sure that the Board will respond in due course. (This message is from me ad hominem.) Patrick Wallace ____________________________________________________________________ Space Science & Technology Department +44-1235-531198 STFC Rutherford Appleton Laboratory Harwell Oxford Didcot, Oxfordshire, OX11 0QX, UK [log in to unmask] ____________________________________________________________________