Cosmo-torun March 2004

cosmo-torun@cosmo.torun.pl

3 participants
10 discussions

Re: (1) pgplot licence vs other; (2) NR (fwd)
by Boud Roukema 31 Mar '04

31 Mar '04

witam, Michał wrote: > Boud Roukema wrote: > > >>what is the purpose of GPL? creating better, community driven software. > >>imho it is more than a license, it is a philosophy. your "software" just > > > > > > It is not philosophy. It is politics, because it relates to the power that > > some people have over other people, and the power that people do *not* > > have over other people. > > > > The intention is to minimise the power that people have over others to > > the minimum necessary - in the context of computer code. > > > > It depends what you mean by "politics" and "philosophy" I believe. in > fact it is both. but developers seem to prefer the term "philosophy" > since it is more positive in meaning. i guess this may be an anglophone/francophone difference. Personally i prefer precision rather than political correctness. > >> do not fit GPL. it is a set of mathematical operations. > >>how the hell do you want people to use it/trace bugs/improve when you > >>only provide hardly readable code?????? > >> > >>we could argue about the quality of the code but I do not think will do > >>any good. > > > > > > The point is not to argue about the quality of the code. > > > > The whole point of the GNU GPL is that concrete discussion of the > > code can happen according to rules which encourage improvement of the code. > > > > Without distribution under GNU GPL, it is difficult to get the *feedback* > > that someone has the opinion that the code is "hardly readable". > > > > I agree. :) > but without providing high-quality code and docs it is hard to > get useful feedback. It's sufficient to improve by the same fraction. Consider a code of low initial quality p(0) = 0.3 with low docs quality q(0)=0.3, versus code with high initial quality p'(0)= 1.0 and high initial docs quality q'(0) = 1.0. In the first case there is on average one iteration of feedback each week which yields moderate improvement in the combined quality x = pq of 10% (alpha = 1.1), in the second case the initial version is only distributed after one year, and then gets feedback yielding improvements of 10%. p(0)=q(0)=0.3 p'(0)=q'(0)=1.0 x(t) = p(0)q(0) alpha^n (n= weeks) x'(t) = p'(0)q'(0) alpha^(max(0,n-52)) which gives for t \ge 52: x(t)= 12.8 alpha^(n-52) x'(t)= 1.0 alpha^(n-52) Conclusion: many iterations through a positive feedback loop starting from an imperfect beginning can give a better result than waiting a long time for a "perfect" beginning to be ready. > > On the other hand, if there is a delay of between several days and > > a few weeks for having the right to use the code, and then a further > > delay of unknown length to redistribute modified versions, the cooperation > > between X, Z, W and U is unlikely to happen, especially given that Y > > feels unhappy with the code and may influence the delays. > > > I can bet that Kriss would be more that happy to accept any help with > porting his software to other languages. Have you tried to chat with him > about licence issues? If you wished to be a neutral, third party moderator to discuss with a certain person regarding certain software, for a publicly archived discussion (like this one) regarding porting of cosmologically useful software to a version distributed under the GNU GPL or a compatible licence, and if you convinced that person and other people interested that you would be a good moderator (meaning that you clarify the discussion, stop different people from flaming or threatening each other, ask them to apologise or find other ways of getting people to cool off if they start flaming, etc.), i would be happily accept this. My prediction is that this would be not be accepted by some of the people, but i would be glad to be wrong. > As I still am quite sure about there is no licence that suits scientific > software and gpl is not the best. that is why some people refuse > gpl-ing. I myself would be very happy having a nicer licence for sci soft. Personally i'm not convinced of the need. I'm aware that if you spend a lot of time on software and don't write many publications, you need to get credit for the software. The GNU GPL already guarantees that the original author's name remains, and IMHO the cosmo community is small enough that people writing, or more importantly, maintaining good software do get credit. Just because it's not formally part of these strange formulas attempting to measure scientific productivity in PL, does not mean the credit is not there. However, you want a modified licence, so please have a look at: http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#ModifyGPL What do think of a licence which is identical to the GNU GPL, but we remove the preamble (unless FSF agrees that we may include it in our modified version after discussion), we modify the end-wording, and we add a term/condition like: SSL-13.0 - proposal for Scientific Software Licence-term/condition 13.0 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 13. Any publication in a recognised scientific journal which makes use of this software must contain the acknowledgment: "Use has been made of PROGRAM-NAME which can be obtained at PROGRAM-URI", where PROGRAM-NAME is the name of the Program and PROGRAM-URI is a Universal Resource Identity showing where the full machine-readable source code of the Program can be downloaded from." ---------------------------------------------------------------------- and then write to licensing at gnu.org to ask for advice. My guess is they would only complain about the compatibility question: http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#WhatIsCompatible In which case i would suggest in addition: SSL-2.1 - proposal for Scientific Software Licence-term/condition 2.1 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- identical with GNU GPL v2 term/condition 2. except for the following: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% "But when ... wrote it. " %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% becomes %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% "But when you distribute the same sections as part of a whole which is a work based on the Program, the distribution of the whole must be on the terms of either this License, whose permissions for other licensees extend to the entire whole, and thus to each and every part regardless of who wrote it, or of the GNU General Public License, as published by the Free Software Foundation (either version 2 of the License, or (at your option) any later version) whose permissions for other licensees extend to the entire whole, and thus to each and every part regardless of who wrote it. If you apply the GNU General Public License rather than this License to the whole, then you are requested (but not required) to include a file called README.acknowledgments in the machine-readable source code which includes the text of term/condition 13. below, with the phrase "Any publication ... acknowledgment:" replaced by "It is kindly requested (but not legally required) that any publication in a recognised scientific journal which makes use of this software should contain the acknowledgment:" %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% ---------------------------------------------------------------------- In short, this means that if an SSL protected package is combined with a non-GNU GPL package, then: - if the other package is also under SSL, the new one can also be SSL - if the other package is GNU GPL, then the new one *must* be GNU GPL (condition 2 of GNU GPL), but the user is *requested* to add a file converting term/condition 13 into a README.acknowledgments file which *requests* the user to write an acknowledgment - if the other package is under some other licence, it may or may not be possible to distribute the combined package, it depends on that other licence. IMHO, this is as strong as we could get while retaining GNU GPL compatibility. If we try to make the request into a requirement, then my worry is it would be GPL incompatible. In fact, compatibility is one of the big issues of the GNU GPL. It enables modules to be combined together in ways far beyond what the original authors ever could do alone. Remember: there are 6 billion of us. That's a lot. Anway, you wanted a licence: what do you think of this one? If we go through a few iterations, with a bit of feedback :), then i'd be happy to write to licensing at gnu.org, point them to our discussion, and see what they think. A simpler alternative to SSL-13.0 + SSL-2.1 would be: SSL-13.1 - proposal for Scientific Software Licence-term/condition 13.1 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 13. It is kindly requested (but not legally required) that any publication in a recognised scientific journal which makes use of this software should contain the acknowledgment: "Use has been made of PROGRAM-NAME which can be obtained at PROGRAM-URI", where PROGRAM-NAME is the name of the Program and PROGRAM-URI is a Universal Resource Identity showing where the full machine-readable source code of the Program can be downloaded from." If you distribute this Program as part of a whole which is a work based on the Program, and you apply the GNU General Public License (GNU GPL) to that whole, then you are kindly requested to copy this term/condition 13. to a file called README.acknowledgments (if it is not already present) and include it in the machine-readable source code. Since further distribution of the whole would occur under the GNU GPL, there would be no further obligation to include the file, only a kind request. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- pozdr boud

1 0

2 topo articles on astro-ph in 1 day!
by Boud Roukema 30 Mar '04

30 Mar '04

Hyperbolic Universes with a Horned Topology and the CMB Anisotropy Authors: Ralf Aurich, Sven Lustig, Frank Steiner, Holger Then http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0403597 A Note on the Robustness of Pair Separations Methods in Cosmic Topology Authors: A. Bernui, G.I. Gomero, B. Mota, M.J. Reboucas http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0403586 The Foot et al papers on mirror matter as a dark matter candidate are also starting to sound convincing (at least from the abstracts). Now it sounds like they get a good match for explaining the relative values of Omega_b and Omega_m which implies a 1ev energy scale and hints at a connection with neutrino oscillations: http://de.arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0402267 Any comments, Bartek? pozd boud

1 1

atto-cosmology: NOAA terrestrian warming goes non-linear?
by Boud Roukema 30 Mar '04

30 Mar '04

atto-cosmology (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SI_prefix for "atto") NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, USA): http://news.independent.co.uk/world/environment/story.jsp?story=505798 > Global warming spirals upwards > By Geoffrey Lean, Environment Editor > > 28 March 2004 > > Levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere have jumped abruptly, > raising fears that global warming may be accelerating out of control. > > Measurements by US government scientists show that concentrations of > the gas, the main cause of the climate exchange, rose by a record > amount over the past 12 months. It is the third successive year in > which they have increased sharply, marking an unprecedented triennial > surge. > > Scientists are at a loss to explain why the rapid rise has taken > place, but fear that it could show the first signs that global warming > is feeding on itself, with rising temperatures causing increases in > carbon dioxide, which then go on to drive the thermometer even > higher. That would be a deeply alarming development, suggesting that > this self-reinforcing heating could spiral upwards beyond the reach of > any attempts to combat it. In other words, we may have reached d(\Delta T)/dt \propto (\Delta T) in which case \Delta T \propto \exp(t) . Of course, negative feedbacks will have to happen sooner or later, but the stable point in N-parameter space could be quite different from the stable point where we have been during the previous 2000 years... ... > The carbon dioxide measurements have been taken from the 11,400ft > summit of Hawaii's Mauna Loa, whose enormous dome makes it the most > substantial mountain on earth, by scientists working for the US > government's National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. ... > The latest measurements, taken a week ago, showed that carbon dioxide > had reached about 379 parts per million (ppm), up from about 376ppm > the year before, from 373ppm in 2002 and about 371ppm in 2001. These > represent three of the four biggest increases on record (the other was > in 1998), creating an unprecedented sequence. They add up to a 64 per > cent rise over the average rate of growth over the past decade, of > 1.8ppm a year. > > The US scientists have yet to analyse the figures and stress that they > could be just a remarkable blip. Professor Ralph Keeling - whose > father Charles Keeling first set up the measurements from Mauna Loa - > said:"We are moving into a warmer world". i highly recommend the wikipedia article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming For people sceptical about the sources of the data (as we all should be), at the bottom of the page there are external web links classified by the biases of the different organisations: "Scientific" (NASA + NOAA) "United Nations" "Environmentalist" "Conservative-affiliated" "Industry-sponsored" "Independent (or receives too little support to constitute "sponsorship")" "Other" Environmental scientists don't seem to publish on http://arxiv.org or the equivalent, unfortunately. pozdr boud

1 0

astro-ph/0403111
by Andrzej Marecki 25 Mar '04

25 Mar '04

astro-ph/0403111 Date (v1): Thu, 4 Mar 2004 03:41:19 GMT (12kb) Date (revised v2): Fri, 12 Mar 2004 04:15:48 GMT (12kb) Date (revised v3): Mon, 22 Mar 2004 02:04:28 GMT (12kb) Date (revised v4): Wed, 24 Mar 2004 04:03:35 GMT (0kb,I) Problems with studying topology of the universe via circles from cosmic microwave background data. Authors: Evelise Gausmann, Reuven Opher Comments: This paper has been withdrawn -- Andrzej

2 1

fealpix vs healpix - it stinks for me
by Michal Frackowiak 24 Mar '04

24 Mar '04

hi there! I have just downloaded the version of fealpix. here are my thoughts after a few minutes of browsing the sources and an attempt to compile things: - Boud: you claim the software to be GPL and attach the license. but the software itself is not in the spirit of GNU at all!!! the idea of gnu software is not: look at me, I can handle dozens of lines of code and several equations without a single line of comment! and that is the software you have created - extremelly unclearly coded, uderstanding hardly possible. with such attitude you simply discourage others to use/learn/modify the code. and that is not gnu. you should not release the code in that form and imho it is against gnu philosophy. - the code is not even comparable to HEALpix in both functionality and documentation - chosing "fealpix" as a name is not fortunate. it seems as a "negative campaign". - no docs, no examples, no comments - could you start using gnu autoconf? - I find "astropolitics" stuff inlcuded somehow improper. you permanently call HEALpix non-free and claim its authors to blindly follow rules of feudal reality. - I am very not sure about NR stuff you use and claim that simple rewrite of routines code makes it free. I have compared just one of the files with what can be found in NumericalRecipies and it is IDENTICAL (apart from changing the variables' names and some minor rearragement). you not simply use provided algorithms, you use provided code which is distributed under somehow more restricted license. that is not the way it should be. if all the gnu community acted like that the gnu software would be a patchwork from stolen code. fortunately others are more creative and write original software. you should not distribute those routines in the present form - the code is not yours. I see all this felapix was intended as a battle for "free software". but the way you fight turns against gnu in fact - by offending people, being extreme radicalist, mixing code and politics, writing unreadable code, stealing code and claiming yours. you should change the way you fight for "free software" because it does not do any good. do the Octave people constantly cry about Matlab beeing non-free???????? or Kaffe and Java?????????? or gcc and icc???? gjc and Java again???????? GNU is about creating BETTER software, not accusing proprietary software of being non-free. that is my oppinion. at this very moment I feel disappointed with what you do with GNU and GPL philosophy. regards - michal BTW: for NR, this is the license you are obliged to follow: If you are the individual owner of a copy of this book and you type one or more of its routines into your computer, we authorize you to use them on that computer for your own personal and noncommercial purposes. You are not authorized to transfer or distribute machine-readable copies to any other person, or to use the routines on more than one machine, or to distribute executable programs containing our routines. This is the only free license.

2 7

COSMO 04 Second Circular (fwd)
by boud 18 Mar '04

18 Mar '04

---------- Forwarded message ---------- > Date: Wed, 17 Mar 2004 19:58:26 -0500 (EST) > From: conference <cosmo04(a)cita.utoronto.ca> > To: conference <cosmo04(a)cita.utoronto.ca> > Subject: COSMO 04 Second Circular COSMO 04 Second Circular ============== Dear Colleague, Thank you for your interest in Cosmo04. Online registration and abstract submission are now open at: http://www.cita.utoronto.ca/~cosmo04/ Accomodation details can also be found on the web site. We will be updating the site regularly with additional information such as session program, list of speakers, and travel information. We look forward to seeing you in Toronto, Cosmo04 Organizing Committee

1 0

low multipoles from Oort cloud?
by Boud Roukema 17 Mar '04

17 Mar '04

http://adjani.astro.uni.torun.pl:9673/zwicky/CosmoNews -> AstroPh:0403353 low multipoles from Oort cloud (outer solar system)? "Is the low-l microwave background cosmic?" - Dominik J. Schwarz (CERN), Glenn D. Starkman (CERN, Case Western Reserve University), Dragan Huterer (CWRU), Craig J. Copi

1 0

bazanski - soft@ mailing list
by Boud Roukema 13 Mar '04

13 Mar '04

Dear Bazański, You have requested to join a private email list ("soft") for a cosmology computer at the TCfA, UMK, for discussing system admin. My guess is this is probably an error - you are most welcome to join any of our lists for discussing cosmology - it would be nice to introduce yourself briefly on cosmo-torun, just for us to get to know each other. My guess from your email address is that you're in physics at UW. :) Probably cosmo-torun and shape-univ are most used right now: http://www.astro.uni.torun.pl/sympa/ regards boud

1 0

A&A impact factor: the danger of productivist ideology
by Boud Roukema 09 Mar '04

09 Mar '04

http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0403184 Authors: Aa. Sandqvist (Stockholm Observatory, AlbaNova, Stockholm, Sweden) Comments: 4 pages, to be published in A. Heck (ed.) "Organizations and Strategies in Astronomy, Vol. 5" (Kluwer, 2004) There is a widespread impression that the scientific journal "Astronomy & Astrophysics" (A&A) has a smaller impact, as measured by citations to articles, than some of the other major astronomy journals. This impression was apparently supported - and probably created - by the Journal Citation Report (JCR), which is prepared annually by the Institute of Scientific Information (ISI) Web of Knowledge. The published poor impact factor of A&A was in fact wrong and was due to a serious flaw in the method used by ISI Web of Knowledge to determine it. The resulting damage inflicted upon A&A by the JCR is incalculable.

1 0

mirror matter + DAMA/NaI => CDM solved ?
by Boud Roukema 08 Mar '04

08 Mar '04

http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0403043 Exploring the mirror matter interpretation of the DAMA experiment: Has the dark matter problem been solved? Authors: R.Foot Comments: About 10 pages The self consistency between the impressive DAMA annual modulation signal and the measured recoil energy spectrum is identified as an important test for dark matter candidates. Mirror matter-type dark matter passes this test while other dark matter candidates, including standard WIMPs and mini-electric charged particle dark matter, fail. We argue that the unique properties of mirror matter-type dark matter seem to be just those required to fully explain the data, suggesting that the dark matter problem has finally been solved.

1 0

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

2006

2005

2004

2003

2002

2001

Cosmo-torun March 2004