Dear Smith,
Please comment on the licensing of IRTK discussion we are having below...
> <snip>
> > > > 3. webpage http://apsy.gse.uni-magdeburg.de/fsl states that Upstream
> > > > IRTK homepage is currently not available but it seems to be there
> > > > following the link you've provided
> > > > http://www.doc.ic.ac.uk/~dr/software/index.html
> > > Thanks for the pointer. The website was still not accessible this morning.
> > the problem here is really a license... since you need to make sure that
> > the users "agree" before you install the beast. So it is necessary to do
> > similar way to java from sun or ibm packages installations -- have a
> > dialog with license so people have to accept it before installing.
> The website is really strange. It states that something is GPL'ed
> http://www.doc.ic.ac.uk/~dr/software/copyright.html
> But no source code is available. This really smells like a license
> violation. The downloadable binary tarball does NOT contain any license
> statement.
> Taking only information from the upstream website into account, I don't
> think that users have to agree to any license before downloading.
it seems that both of us are lost :-)
http://www.doc.ic.ac.uk/~dr/software/copyright.html
seems to be talking about
Common++, Geometry++ and Image++ Libraries , not IRTK explicitly --
thus I am not sure how you got to that page. Also
on
http://wwwhomes.doc.ic.ac.uk/~dr/software/
they say "We only distribute the source code of the software for
specific research collaborations" which is as you mentioned would have
been in violation of GPL.
Whenever you get FSL from the website it asks you to agree to ""the
licence for the IRTK registration software used by the TBSS
tool in FSL", so IRTK is distributed along with FSL not under GPL but
under nasty IRTK license for some reason...
Were IRTK authors contacted and asked if there is a chance to have IRTK
distributed under GPL for the sake of humanity, or there is really a
trade secret to hide/protect/obscure?
> > > > >...<
> > > True. Never considered signing the release file, though. I'm using
> > > apt-ftparchive to generate the repository files. Which would be
> > > the best way to get all relevant files signed?
> > Well - any file can be signed by gpg directly, but you need to get
> > >...<
> Really nice howto. Will have a look at it soon. I did not consider
> debarchiver when I created the archive, because I felt it was doing to
> much. But since then the repository has grown significantly, so it
> might be a good idea to move forward.
same here -- started with small scripts and then ended up patching
debarchiver to provide default major command line parameter. You
might want to look at the -majordefault as well (upstream included it at
0.6.0) to have easy placing of fsl packages under fsl major (unless you
expclitely assign that major in ... don't remember where :-))
--
Yaroslav Halchenko
Research Assistant, Psychology Department, Rutgers-Newark
Office: (973) 353-5440x263 | FWD: 82823 | Fax: (973) 353-1171
101 Warren Str, Smith Hall, Rm 4-105, Newark NJ 07105
Student Ph.D. @ CS Dept. NJIT
|
