+1 PR for the NOTICE [1] includes the changes Justin suggested, will be fixed in the next release. Agree with Daniel, the node creation is a common technique in the data science community and does not represent code, it is representing a procedure to create nodes. Therefore the use of this procedure seems compliant.
1 - https://github.com/apache/incubator-wayang/pull/37 > On 7. Nov 2021, at 08:58, Daniel Widdis <wid...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Generally in agreement, but: > >> given there may be a license issue and it's very easy to fix, why not fix it? > > Any "fix" will look like the old code and thus be "modified". > > The new graph in this case happens to have the same number of nodes and arcs > as the original copyrighted artwork, but arranged in a completely different > way. Your position seems to be this might not "fix" the problem. > > I think we are all in agreement that a randomly generated set of nodes and > arcs would be compliant, even if the code still looks similar. > > > On 11/6/21, 11:40 PM, "Justin Mclean" <jus...@classsoftware.com> wrote: > > Hi, > >> And sure, the image labeled with B and C is based on the non-labeled image >> with smiley faces, so I'll concede that image, and even the exact network it >> represents, may fall under CC-BY-SA, and thus it was correct to remove the >> old code. > > This main issue I think as the old code wasn’t replaced but modified. > Modified stuff in general keeps the same license the original. That may apply > here, but I’m not 100% sure, but I don’t think it a serious issue. But given > there may be a license issue and it's very easy to fix, why not fix it? Also > other IPMC members can still vote +1 and this become a release, but I suggest > the project fixes it in a future release. If you had used teh WIP progress > disclaimer I would have votes +1 and suggested that. > >> Are you asserting that any directed graph is CC-BY-SA licensed? If not, >> what is the threshold for difference that you would accept? > > I would assume not, but you'd need to get actually legal advice to regards > what the threshold would be. As is every user of this software may need to > seek that advice in order to use it without that risk. The risk could be > minimal or nonexistent, but IANAL it's best IMO to err on the side of caution > with stuff like this. > >> Would it be acceptable to generate a completely random graph using [1] and >> represent that in the code? > > Sure, but so would one that the project came up with itself that wasn’t > based on another one, or one that was under compatible license. > > Kind Regards, > Justin > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
