Evening,
I wrote to Andrew Hamilton, and below is his answer. He has basically no problem with it at all, I just don't know if his response is explicit enough.
I think my email was quite extensive, and I assume that is as much as we will get from him. I also do not expect him to change his on "13 Mar 1999, 21:17" from TeX translated website...
What do you think, is this enough?
I also wrote to Takuya Ooura, and will let you know of his response, if I get one. However, as there are other complex logarithmic double precision gamma functions around, one already in scipy, this piece is not mission critical.
Regards,
Dieter
========== START email correspondence with Andrew Hamilton ==========
Subject: Re: FFTLog - license
From: Andrew Hamilton <andrew.hamilton@colorado.edu>
Date: 07/10/16 18:22
To: Dieter Werthmüller <dieter.werthmuller@gmx.ch>
CC: Andrew.Hamilton@colorado.edu
Dieter,
I approve your adding the license language you suggest to FFTLog, and making available the resulting package for distribution.
Andrew
On 10/07/2016 03:42 PM, Dieter Werthmüller wrote:
> Dear Andrew,
>
> Please apologize me bothering you again.
>
> After I published the code to wrap your FFTLog for Python I thought that
> it would be much better if your FFTLog would make it straight into the
> scientific library of Python. This would make your FFTLog available to a
> much wider audience.
>
> I contacted the developers of SciPy (http://scipy.org), and they are
> interested in including your code. However, there is one issue:
> licensing. Code that is published on the web without a license file is
> copyrighted under law, and SciPy can for this reason not include your
> code into their library.
>
> All I ask for is if you could confirm to us by email that we are allowed
> to distribute your FFTLog under the BSD-3-Clause license:
> https://opensource.org/licenses/BSD-3-Clause
>
> The license is just a suggestion, any other BSD or MIT compatible
> license would be fine as well. (For the same, legal reasons we recommend
> to publish a license file on your website too, but that is obviously
> entirely up to you. It might, however, clarify things for future visitors.)
>
> It would only affect your fftlog.f file, and the changes you made to
> cdgamma.f. I will write Takuya OOURA as well regarding the original
> cdgamma.f-file, asking him the same favour. And the three drfft*.f are
> already in the SciPy-library with the whole FFTPack.
>
> If you are interested why this issue arises, Jake Vanderplas, one of the
> developers of SciPy, wrote an interesting article about the topic:
> http://www.astrobetter.com/blog/2014/03/10/the-whys-and-hows -of-licensing-scientific-code/
>
> Thank you again for your time and for making FFTLog available!
> Best regards,
> Dieter
>
========== END email correspondence with Andrew Hamilton ==========
On 07/10/16 15:13, Ralf Gommers wrote:
On Sat, Oct 8, 2016 at 9:11 AM, Ralf Gommers <ralf.gommers@gmail.com
<mailto:ralf.gommers@gmail.com>> wrote: <dieter@werthmuller.org <mailto:dieter@werthmuller.org
On Sat, Oct 8, 2016 at 8:59 AM, Dieter Werthmüller>> wrote: ______________________________
Jake,
Thanks for the clarification. I will try to get the permissions
from the
authors.
What is regarded as sufficient? Is an email from the author,
granting
me/SciPy to distribute their code with a specific, BSD-style license
sufficient? Or do they necessarily have to change the websites where
they host the code to include the license?
An email stating that the code can be distributed under a BSD
license (or MIT or other compatible license) is enough.
Some delay on the line, missed Jake's answer. Email is enough, but a
change in the repo would of course be even better.
Ralf
_________________
SciPy-Dev mailing list
SciPy-Dev@scipy.org
https://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/scipy-dev
_______________________________________________
SciPy-Dev mailing list
SciPy-Dev@scipy.org
https://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/scipy-dev