Re: Advice on packaging SAGE
On Thursday 31 May 2007 19:54, Charles Plessy wrote:
> As a personal point of view, I would never pacakge a 4-clause licenced
> software. It just means that the advertisement clause would be
> deliberately violated in so many cases, I do not want to take that
> responsibility. Actually, I prepared the primer3 Debian package, which
> was relicenced upstream from 4-clause to 3-clause after my request.
> Definitely, the fsf page I cite above is well written, convincing, and
> contains a "University of California did so" example which has some
> wheight as well.
As a counterexample, the afflib at [1] was specifically licensed under the
4-clause because the company developing thinks they deserve the credit for
developing it. It seems kind of arrogant when others most certainly have
contributed to the library's development.
[1]http://www.afflib.org/
wt
--
Warren Turkal, Research Associate III/Systems Administrator
Colorado State University, Dept. of Atmospheric Science
Reply to: