>Also, shouldn't the date
>be 1983-2003, or whenever the oldest bit of software is -- the date
>is supposed to be the creation date, and not everything was created
>this year!

I thought that the date should be when the licence changed. If we put
1983-2003, then this would make all previous versions GPL. Would this cause
a problem?

I will change the common sense bit.

I would put the exclusions in the statement at the top of the CD, but if
individual packages have code in them that is not GPL then they can not be
called GPL software. We would have to strip out the non-GPL code. Also, you
are not supposed to link agenised any non-GPL libraries (kappa?).

I was going to look through the software for the CONDITIONS files and change
them (all the same for now, except for non-starlink packages).

> For general publications, we suggest referencing:
>
>   "The authors acknowledge the data analysis facilities provided by the
>    Starlink Project which is run by CCLRC on behalf of PPARC."

This is stated in out FAQ document on our website
(http://www.starlink.rl.ac.uk/faq.htm#SL.5.1). If we have any publications
or conference proceedings, then we should state these.

Steve.

-----Original Message-----
From: Norman Gray [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
Sent: 04 June 2003 11:53
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Licence statement

Steve,

On Wed, 4 Jun 2003, Rankin, SE (Stephen) wrote:

> We need something to say that some packages in the Starlink Software
> Collection have their own License and Copyright statement. Should we state
> which packages they are?

Where is this to go?  If it's to be in a README at the top of the CD,
then yes, I agree we need to mention that there are exclusions.

> License and Copyright
> ---------------------
>
> The Starlink Software Collection is Copyright (c) 2003 Council for the
> Central Laboratory of the Research Councils ("CCLRC").

Perhaps add, `unless a statement to the contrary appears within the
Software itself'.  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
is supposed to be the creation date, and not everything was created
this year!

We haven't been through all the software changing whatever licence
statements there may be, so perhaps we should say something like

    Some of the code distributed here refers to an earlier version of
    the Starlink Software Licence, located at
    <http://www.starlink.rl.ac.uk/store/conditions.html>, which
    permitted non-commercial use only.  This licence has been
    superseded, and any references to that licence should be taken to
    refer to this licence instead.

[that URL is still there, by the way]

> In addition, we kindly ask you to acknowledge The Starlink Software
> Collection in any program or publication in which you use The Starlink
> Software Collection. (You are not required to do so; it is up to your
common
> sense to decide whether you want to comply with this request or not.)
>
> For general publications, we suggest referencing:
>
>   "The authors acknowledge the data analysis facilities provided by the
>    Starlink Project which is run by CCLRC on behalf of PPARC."

I'm with Peter, here -- common sense is indeed what we're after, but
it seems a bit cheeky to refer to it this way.  How about

    In addition, we ask you consider acknowledging the Collection in any
    program or publication in which you use it.  For general publications,
    we suggest `The authors acknowledge the data analysis facilities
    provided by the Starlink Project which is run by CCLRC on behalf
    of PPARC.'

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?

Isn't there a general problem here, that we don't really what licences
apply to much of the software?  Would it be worthwhile doing some
general audit of this, just to make sure we know where we stand?

Of mine:

    astrom and autoastrom: all GPL, and they state this internally in
    the Approved Fashion (I think)

    ESP: no non-Starlink code, but also no licence statements at all
    as far as I can see in a quick look

    ECHOMOP: I don't _think_ there's any non-Starlink code, but I
    haven't been through it.

    SGML kit (does anyone care...?): all Starlink, but no licence
    statements.

    SC/13: all Starlink, no licence statements.  Perhaps such
    documentation should have a suitable text licence, such
    as FDL <http://www.gnu.org/licenses/licenses.html#FDL>,
    opencontent <http://opencontent.org/>, or CreativeCommons
    <http://creativecommons.org/> (FDL's obviously closest to GPL).

Ought we to worry about putting the licence statements in the various
packages?

Of course, this is not for this CD....


--
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Norman Gray                        http://www.astro.gla.ac.uk/users/norman/
Physics and Astronomy, University of Glasgow, UK     [log in to unmask]