Re: Meshlab and Qutemol
that incriminiated 'should' means that people are
'morally obliged' to cite the use of MeshLab.
not legally obliged. In a previous version of the meshlab home page
it was better specified. I will re specify in that way.
I think that these conditions pass without any problem the ten
guidelines of DFSG and even the desert island test.
Now a more technichal question.
For meshlab, I use qmake as a portable building system.
Is that considered a sufficiently good replacemnte of
automake/autoconf (i have never used them from a developer point of
view only as a dumb installer)?
On 5/9/07, Kevin B. McCarty <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
On 5/9/07, Jordi Gutierrez Hermoso <email@example.com> wrote:
> I just read in the project's webpage that
> Remember that, whenever you use MeshLab in a official/commercial
> project or in any kind of research, you should:
> * Explicitly cite in your work that you have used MeshLab, a tool
> developed with the support of the Epoch NOE,
> * Post a couple of lines in the users' forum describing the
> project where MeshLab was used.
> This may be a DFSG issue (fails the desert island test?).
I guess it would depend on whether the "should" above is intended to
be legally binding. If not, for reasons of clarification it might be
a good idea for upstream to rewrite this text to read something like
"The authors of MeshLab would appreciate it if, whenever you use
MeshLab in an official/commercial project or in any kind of research,
[skip bullet points]
However, this is not a legally binding obligation."
If the text *is* meant to be legally binding, then I agree, it sounds
Kevin B. McCarty <firstname.lastname@example.org> Physics Department
WWW: http://www.princeton.edu/~kmccarty/ Princeton University
GPG: public key ID 4F83C751 Princeton, NJ 08544