Re: Name restriction and forced acknowledgement OK?
MJ Ray <mjr@phonecoop.coop> writes:
>> Why? It just requires that they get a different name.
> I would have said it fails DFSG 4. One rename is fine, but this
> requires that everything is renamed, which is a practical pain in the
> bum for no good effect, and tries to grab an infinite number of names.
It requires that one just writes a couple of #defines; interestingly
they limit the restriction to "routine(s)", and a macro #define is
clearly not a routine. If I would accompany the library with a header
file
void IAU_Epj2d(...);
#define iauEpj2jd IAU_Epj2d
etc.
no function or subroutine would be called in the manner they wanted;
instead all calls to functions with the restricted names would be
changed by the preprocessor to unrestricted ones (with the same effect).
Therefore, they just win nothing.
My question here is: if someone writes in the copyright "you are not
allowed to start the function names of the derivated work with
'bacefook_'", does it affect the freedom? How is the case with
iceweasel? Am I allowed to take iceweasel, rename it to firefox and
submit it (for example) to Debian?
>> If it is really non-free: would a library, where I (as the packager)
>> would change all prefixes from iau to IAU (as an example) be free in the
>> dfsg sense? This change would allow anyone to adopt the source code and
>> to write a drop-in replacement.
> I'm not sure. Is the law case-sensitive? If so, HOW DID HARD-TO-READ
> SHOUTY DISCLAIMERS EVER GET STARTED? ;-)
"iau" is different from "IAU", at least in C. And it is the source code
of the C library what we speak about. However, I easily could use other
names ("uai", "i_dfsg_au" or even randomly generated ones, accompanied
with the header file above).
>> * 4. In any published work or commercial products which includes
>> * results achieved by using the SOFA software, you shall
>> * acknowledge that the SOFA software was used in obtaining those
>> * results.
> This might fail DFSG 9 (must not contaminate other software) but
> doesn't this actually exceed the power of copyright?
>
> Here's a FAQ about whether the GNU GPL can be applied to program output:
> http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#GPLOutput
Interesting. Is there a good explanation for that (something I could
send them to convince that they change the copyright here?)
>> * By post: IAU SOFA Center
>> * HM Nautical Almanac Office
>> * UK Hydrographic Office
>> * Admiralty Way, Taunton
>> * Somerset, TA1 2DN
>> * United Kingdom
> I'm in Taunton on Wednesday... do they accept personal callers? ;-)
I have contacted them about the license issues, but still didn't get an
answer. So, if you have personal contacts there, feel free to ask :-)
Best regards
Ole
Reply to: