Just chipping in here...
On 2012 Feb 8, at 21:37, Tim Jenness wrote:
>>> The other thing I noticed about NOVAS is that it's just a bunch
>>> of standalone C files that they expect you to copy into your build
>>> directory along with your other code.
>>
>> Here we have world experts offering no-strings-attached code of
>> superb reliability and authority, with no electronic bureaucracy
>> to get in the way, and you're complaining.
>>
>
> I'm only mentioning the uncertainty. Saying there are no licensing
> requirements may mean that we can attach the GPL to it and carry on
> but IANAL. The MIT license really would be a useful licence for them
> to use since it would explicitly state everything they are trying to
> achieve.
It sounds as if it would be a Service To The Community for someone to spend a little time wrapping up the SOFA and/or NOVAS routines in some more conventional format (that is, supporting ./configure;make, and possibly hosted on bitbucket or github). As a quid pro quo, the authors might be prompted to clarify the licence terms.
(I haven't been following the discussion in great detail, but...) it sounds as if this would tidy up a few loose edges, here, and it could be an interesting student or intern project, for example.
All the best,
Norman
--
Norman Gray : http://nxg.me.uk
SUPA School of Physics and Astronomy, University of Glasgow, UK
|