[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Is this copyright/license agreement Octave-compatible

From: Josh Rigler
Subject: Is this copyright/license agreement Octave-compatible
Date: Fri, 16 Nov 2007 16:05:40 -0700
User-agent: Thunderbird (Windows/20071031)

Long ago (c.2001), I asked a question on this list about an overly simple copyright/license statement that came with NASA's CDF libraries at the time:

In short, JWE felt that it was inadequate because it tried to restrict 'for profit' redistribution, and more importantly, it tried to restrict modifications to the software. I had little choice but to keep my CDF toolbox to myself, and sadly, it was never fully implemented, since I never needed more than the ability to read data from existing files.

More recently, I've had reason to look into the project again, and found this new (if only marginally less simple) copyright/license statement on NASA's CDF website (I changed nothing but formatting, all parenthetical statements belong to NASA):

  This software may be copied or redistributed as long as it is
  not sold for profit, but it can be incorporated into any other
  substantive product with or without modifications for profit or
  non-profit. If the software is modified, it must include the
  following notices:

    * The software is not the original (for protection of the
      original author's reputations from any problems introduced
      by others)

    * Change history (e.g. date, functionality, etc.)

  This copyright notice must be reproduced on each copy made.
  This software is provided as is without any express or implied
  warranties whatsoever.

For the life of me I don't know why they didn't just follow HDF and NetCDF's lead and write a genuine OSS-compliant license, but it does seem like it addresses the concerns raised by JWE over six years ago. It no longer restricts modifications, and may be included with something that is sold for profit, if incorporated into a 'substantive product'. I'm not sure what 'substantive product' means, but I am inclined to interpret this with infinite breadth until NASA chooses to clarify.

Would anyone care to take a moment to consider this and give me their interpretation? Thanks.


reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]