JiscMail Logo
Email discussion lists for the UK Education and Research communities

Help for STARDEV Archives


STARDEV Archives

STARDEV Archives


STARDEV@JISCMAIL.AC.UK


View:

Message:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Topic:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Author:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

Font:

Proportional Font

LISTSERV Archives

LISTSERV Archives

STARDEV Home

STARDEV Home

STARDEV  February 2012

STARDEV February 2012

Options

Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Log In

Log In

Get Password

Get Password

Subject:

Re: slalib: slaPvobs missing

From:

Olе Streicher <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

Starlink development <[log in to unmask]>

Date:

Mon, 13 Feb 2012 20:51:18 +0100

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (146 lines)

[log in to unmask] writes:
> 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.

"contrib" contains only software, that is compliant, bot depends on
other software. If SOFA must go to "non-free", ds9 would need to be in
"contrib". 

Neither "non-free" nor "contrib" are part of Debian. Debian just
provides infrastructure for them, see
<http://www.debian.org/doc/debian-policy/ch-archive.html>.

>> 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 - 

This may happen, ofcourse. It may also happen that someone fixes a bug
in the SOFA source code.

> and a recipient would naturally assume the IAU screwed up.

To prevent this, there is §3a and §3c of the SOFA license which require
that the change track is clearly indicated.

What is compliant (and may be a compromise here) is that the changed
library itself is forced to use another name -- this would look a good
compromise for me.

>> 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.

I am not an official Debian Developer, I am just a volunteer -- not even
an experienced one. However, since Debian collects by far most of
packages of the distibutions (~29000 in the moment), this seem not to
prevent packages going in.

In fact, many of other scientific packages -- especially newer ones --
are DFSG compliant.

>> 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.

I have choosen this example to show that the license in its current form
does not hinder anyone from destroying its spirit while formally
completely fullfilling all requirements -- what means that the current
license *as a legal document* just does not help you. So, in principle,
you could replace these paragraphs by recommended "best practices".

>> 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.

There are good reasons for that: imagine one has a program that uses
these functions extensively, and he wants to replace the core by some
vector functions (SSE, or AVX). This requires changes (or a completely
new version written from scratch) of the source code, and therefore
requires that every program that uses this library needs to be
changed and recompiled. Providing a program that may use both versions
would be almost impossible (as long as you don't #define one function
name with the other), so you need to distribute two programs. Having a
similar problem with another library of your programs would double the
number of versions again.

Requiring a renaming of function names may be a somehow acceptable
solution if people just include the source code of a few functions, but
for libraries -- especially for shared libraries it is a hell.

Imagine that the Java developers would require that only their original
"java.util.List" source code may be called "List" -- porting a program
to another implementation (like IBM) would be a pain.

>> 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.

.... than a new library written by a greenhorn like me from scratch??

>> In my opinion, this is a funny rule,

> It is not unlike the convention that exists for scientific papers.

I know that it was intended to be modeled like that. However, software
is not a scientific paper. One cannot just adopt the rules of scientific
publications to software. The example I have shown (SOFA->PAL->AST->DS9)
shows this clearly.

>> 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.

This would require that SOFA allows linkage only to programs or
libraries that themself include such a rule.

LGPL does not. PAL is (L?)GPL, AST is GPL, and at least AST cannot be
changed since it has contributions from third parties.

So, you would basically prevent AST to be linked with SOFA.

>> It is questionable whether this is a legal restriction at all

> Possibly not, but it's what well-mannered scientists actually do.

If it is not a legal restriction, it should be not in the license. It
should be in the README.

>> 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.)

Thank you very much for discussing your opinion with me. I will wait for
the answer of the board and hope that we can find a good compromise.

Best regads

Ole

Top of Message | Previous Page | Permalink

JiscMail Tools


RSS Feeds and Sharing


Advanced Options


Archives

December 2023
January 2023
December 2022
July 2022
June 2022
April 2022
March 2022
December 2021
October 2021
July 2021
April 2021
January 2021
October 2020
September 2020
August 2020
May 2020
November 2019
October 2019
July 2019
June 2019
February 2019
January 2019
December 2018
November 2018
August 2018
July 2018
May 2018
April 2018
March 2018
February 2018
December 2017
October 2017
August 2017
July 2017
May 2017
April 2017
February 2017
January 2017
December 2016
November 2016
October 2016
September 2016
August 2016
July 2016
May 2016
April 2016
March 2016
February 2016
January 2016
December 2015
October 2015
September 2015
August 2015
April 2015
March 2015
February 2015
January 2015
December 2014
November 2014
October 2014
September 2014
August 2014
July 2014
June 2014
May 2014
April 2014
March 2014
February 2014
January 2014
December 2013
November 2013
October 2013
September 2013
August 2013
July 2013
June 2013
May 2013
April 2013
March 2013
February 2013
January 2013
December 2012
November 2012
October 2012
September 2012
August 2012
July 2012
June 2012
May 2012
April 2012
March 2012
February 2012
January 2012
December 2011
November 2011
October 2011
September 2011
August 2011
July 2011
June 2011
May 2011
April 2011
March 2011
February 2011
January 2011
December 2010
November 2010
October 2010
September 2010
August 2010
July 2010
June 2010
May 2010
April 2010
March 2010
February 2010
January 2010
December 2009
November 2009
October 2009
September 2009
August 2009
July 2009
June 2009
May 2009
April 2009
March 2009
February 2009
January 2009
December 2008
November 2008
October 2008
September 2008
August 2008
July 2008
June 2008
May 2008
April 2008
March 2008
February 2008
January 2008
December 2007
November 2007
October 2007
September 2007
August 2007
July 2007
June 2007
May 2007
April 2007
March 2007
February 2007
January 2007
December 2006
November 2006
October 2006
September 2006
August 2006
July 2006
June 2006
May 2006
April 2006
March 2006
February 2006
January 2006
December 2005
November 2005
October 2005
September 2005
August 2005
July 2005
June 2005
May 2005
April 2005
March 2005
February 2005
January 2005
December 2004
November 2004
October 2004
September 2004
August 2004
July 2004
June 2004
May 2004
April 2004
March 2004
February 2004
January 2004
2004
April 2003
2003


JiscMail is a Jisc service.

View our service policies at https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/policyandsecurity/ and Jisc's privacy policy at https://www.jisc.ac.uk/website/privacy-notice

For help and support help@jisc.ac.uk

Secured by F-Secure Anti-Virus CataList Email List Search Powered by the LISTSERV Email List Manager