Per NAG lawyers, "NAG notices in separate files" must remain despite my complaints.
The LICENSE directory policy was put in place shortly after the NAG discussions based on a compromise NAG lawyers and I agreed to. It was too long ago for me to remember what Arthur requested. I suspect he sent code that also had a license file so it was added. His code is likely still part of your current algebra without his license. Bill Schelter and I had numerous license / copyright discussions. https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/gcl-devel/2003-07/msg00142.html As for "old stuff, the license.ccl exists because of Arthur Norman discussions so that license pre-dates even the Axiom open source version. Arthur and I had several discussions as he was upset that I moved Axiom back to GCL. I don't know if the original NAG sources I posted are anywhere in your source tree but those sources contain Norman's CCL. The CCL license might fall under legal abandonment but that's a question I'm unqualified to decide. Ask your University lawyers. Managing a license is a royal pain. There is a reason Stallman created GPL. ( It gets even worse once copyright and trademarks get involved ) Rather than using GPL, reach out to MathCAD and offer to support and enhance everything they do. Everybody enjoys help. Once they depend on your support they are much more likely to continue using your code. Trying to use GPL to force people to contribute MathCAD changes seems to conflict with the fact that none of the current codebase changes were ever submitted back to Axiom even when the code was just a branch from main. GPL can't really enforce the "ethics of cooperation". I'm just happy someone still uses code I wrote 40 years ago. Tim On Thursday, July 4, 2024 at 2:31:01 PM UTC-4 Waldek Hebisch wrote: > On Thu, Jul 04, 2024 at 09:04:03AM -0700, Tim Daly wrote: > > I notice that Axiom has a number of licenses, such as Arthur Ralfs > > https://github.com/daly/axiom/blob/master/license > > which don't seem to exist in the current LICENSE directory. > > https://github.com/fricas/fricas/tree/master/license > > > > If the code exists in the source code history the license must remain. > > The fact that the code was later removed doesn't matter as the repo > still > > contains it > > so the license must still be immediately available, not just in old > history. > > Almost certainly most of the license material can be found from the > initial > > fork > > and the initial site creation at the time of the fork. > > Well BSD says that license should be included with the sources, but > does not force you to sprinkle copy of the license to multiple > places. I _think_ that legaly NAG notices in separate files > could be replaced by a single one, but since NAG wanted per file > licence I keep it that way. Similarly with other licences. > > As I wrote you most of old stuff that you bundled never was part of > FriCAS repository. New contributions, are covered by overall > LICENSE.txt. Concerning Arthur Ralfs, I do not know why did you > put separate licence file in Axiom. Artur knew Axiom and FriCAS > licence, clearly wanted his code to be included and I included > what he provided. Did he request you to put this licence file? > > -- > Waldek Hebisch > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "FriCAS - computer algebra system" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/fricas-devel/aa7d94d1-0eac-4767-a7c6-9b63f521f105n%40googlegroups.com.
