Hi, great news for newmat : - newmat package is ready at mentors.debian.net - new "DFSG" version is going to be released if everyone agrea with the new licence at bottom
Robert Davies wrote: > Someone seemed to think it didn't meet the > Debian guidelines, but I don't see how. It's clear for me : ### http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=335185;msg=57 > I welcome its distribution as part of low cost CD-ROM collections. Here it seems that permission to distribute is granted, but only as part of low cost CD-ROM collections. No permission to distribute via other means seems to be granted. Non-free. ### > > I'll delete the line about CD-ROM distributions, otherwise leave it as > it is, Ok then then it will be "free" : free to get, and distribute > except I have noted who "I" is. humm, sorry what do you mean ? > (In the old days, people would submit programs to SIMTEL80 and then > get upset > when they found their way on to $25 CD-ROMS of software. I wanted to make > it clear this wasn't a problem with newmat. But this is not relevant > now). Ok then non restriction on distribution that's free > > I'll leave in the comment about commercial use as otherwise I'll get > emails > about whether commercial use is OK. ok > > The BSD and Thai software (=MIT?) licenses are unsatisfactory as humm I suppose this text was a sample licence used by "Thai Open Source Software Center", just replace this by your name > > (1) they allow people to distribute modified versions without saying > they are modified. true, unless you add a clause to those licence > (2) they don't protect me where I am neither the author or copyright > holder. are you sure ? It is often mentionned in the first line : Copyright (c) <YEAR>, <OWNER>" > (3) I am unclear what copyright applies to the license itself. OK I got it, you were confused by the previous sample I gave (ThaiOSSC vs MIT) but http://www.opensource.org/licenses/mit-license.php is clear (same for BSD) see (2) > (4) They are done by lawyers for lawyers, whereas I want something > that users might read. Unfortunatly not all users read licence, and you know where there is no cop there is no law ... Is a "custom" licence "stronger" that a approved licence , when the licence is actually read ? If I had to, I'll add that "modification notification clause" to some approved licence > > As I understand it, my conditions fall into the Debian Guidelines. Yea the distribution part was blocking , not anymore since "the low cost CD" part is removed > > If you are happy with my version included below, I am, I am forwarding to the experts , wait a couple of days and check if noone complain at http://bugs.debian.org/335185 > I'll make a new version of newmat10c > that has these conditions in the html file and in a new file > "copying.txt". please use AUTHORS and COPYING they will be triguerred by Scripts (as well as INSTALL README NEWS ChangeLog ) > There > probably won't be any other changes. great, let me suggest to add my msvc-6 project files ( newmat.dsw , newmat.dsp , example.dsp ) I had to fix some namespace use (see under, my patch) to be supported by msvc-6 , 7.1 and 8.0 > You are welcome to include your make file in the Debian version and > use a different > numbering system. Well I followed recomendations, but I think this is possible to name it 1.10.c would you prefer (I avoided it because you also use beta name, which can not be sorted alphabetically) > I'll think about including a version of the make file like yours in > newmat11. Please do, my patch is under the same licence as yours : http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/n/newmat/?C=M;O=D ( take latest .diff.gz file : ) > The make files I distribute are generated automatically do you use a custom tool for that ? cmake can overcome with that nightmare I allready used it > so I need to see > what changes I need to make to the generate program to get yours and > to provide the same > facilities to other compilers that I support. maybe having a "empty" config.h included in your include.h preserve compatibility, (both could be merged in a single usual config.h) > > > Conditions of use. > > I place no restrictions on the use of newmat except that I take > no liability for any problems that may arise from its use, > distribution or other dealings with it. ok > You can use it in your commercial projects. ok > > You can make and distribute modified or merged versions. under different licence ? > You can > include parts of it in your own software. should it be mentionned ? should the licence be included also ? > > If you distribute modified or merged versions, please make it clear > which parts are mine and which parts are modified. and what about copied parts ? (previous statement ) > > For a substantially modified version, simply note that it is, in > part, derived from my software. A comment in the code will be > sufficient. sounds good > > The software is provided "as is", without warranty of any kind. > > Please understand that there may still be bugs and errors. Use at > your own risk. I (Robert Davies) take no responsibility for any errors > or omissions in this package or for any misfortune that may befall you > or others as a result of your use, distribution or other dealings with > it. ok, generally Licences dont mentions names (projects or persons), then they can be reused > > > Robert > thank you for your time, I know this licence stuff is a borring task.. Take care -- # http://rzr.online.fr -- xmpp:rzr[a]jabber.org -- sip:[EMAIL PROTECTED] # Related Obsession : http://rzr.online.fr/q/MathsSoftware -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]