From michalf w ncac.torun.pl Wed Mar 3 13:06:03 2004 From: michalf w ncac.torun.pl (Michal Frackowiak) Date: Wed, 03 Mar 2004 13:06:03 +0100 Subject: fealpix vs healpix - it stinks for me Message-ID: <4045CA2B.3000703@ncac.torun.pl> 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. From boud w astro.uni.torun.pl Wed Mar 17 14:43:40 2004 From: boud w astro.uni.torun.pl (Boud Roukema) Date: Wed, 17 Mar 2004 14:43:40 +0100 (CET) Subject: low multipoles from Oort cloud? Message-ID: 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 From boud w astro.uni.torun.pl Thu Mar 18 10:34:16 2004 From: boud w astro.uni.torun.pl (boud) Date: Thu, 18 Mar 2004 10:34:16 +0100 (CET) Subject: COSMO 04 Second Circular (fwd) Message-ID: ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > Date: Wed, 17 Mar 2004 19:58:26 -0500 (EST) > From: conference > To: conference > 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 From boud w astro.uni.torun.pl Fri Mar 19 23:00:38 2004 From: boud w astro.uni.torun.pl (Boud Roukema) Date: Fri, 19 Mar 2004 23:00:38 +0100 (CET) Subject: (1) pgplot licence vs other; (2) NR In-Reply-To: <40582883.6000206@ncac.torun.pl> References: <4045CA2B.3000703@ncac.torun.pl> <40460D61.2000501@ncac.torun.pl> <4056E7BB.7080609@ncac.torun.pl> <40582883.6000206@ncac.torun.pl> Message-ID: hi Michał, [Just a reminder: this is a discussion among people who voluntarily are subscribed to this list or who voluntarily read the public archive. Anyone sensitive about these issues should refrain from reading this discussion. There is no intention to provoke anyone. The intention is to understand the issues. Please stop reading now if you are sensitive to software issues.] On Wed, 17 Mar 2004, Michal Frackowiak wrote: > Hi! > > > about GNU and GPL: > > 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. > 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". Suppose that - a person X distributes a computer code A under the GNU GPL and there is no controversy regarding the GNU GPL. - a second person Y claims that the code A is "hardly readable". Then there are several constructive things that can happen: - X can add more comments to the code and distribute an improved version - a third party Z who finds the code not the difficult to read can add more comments and rapidly distribute an improved version - Y will then either choose to provide comments on whether or not the new versions are more readable, or choose to do nothing - maybe Z will recommend the amended version to a fourth and fifth person W and U and together X, Z, W and U will each make modifications and the code will rapidly evolve. With several iterations, the code will rapidly become better documented and debugged, without having unnecessary power of some people over others. This is the politics aspect of GNU GPL. 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. > see my other comments below: > > Boud Roukema wrote: > > > > > === The differences between the pgplot licence and some other licence === > > > > (1) distribution: pgplot can be downloaded immediately without delay, > > without requiring any subjective decisions by the owners on whether or not > > to accept the request for registration. > > > > (2) pgplot does not require the use of further non-free packages > > Regarding (1), could you imagine someone installing a whole lot of > > packages, maybe with gentoo or debian, and having to wait three days > > for the successive installation of each of 15 different packages? > > > > That would make 45 days if the person installing does not know in > > advance what the dependencies of the packages are. > > > > IMHO, taking 45 days (or anything of a similar order of magnitude) > > to fully install a package is clearly something utterly impractical. > > > It is not an argument nor a nice analogy. It seems as you are the only > one that hates the registration process. HEALpix is a very specialized > package with the very limiter users group. I can not see anything wrong > if the author of such a package wants its users to register. Let us not to provoke people into anger with words like "hate". Some people can take these emotions very seriously. The delay (1) is an argument, i don't understand why you say it is not an argument. The claim that a package is very specialised and only a small number of people want to use it is a self-fulfilling prophecy, and it is extremely political. It implies that an elite has the right to create barriers to access to knowledge by ordinary people. It is the opposite of what a university is supposed to be about. GNU is not about superiority of an elite over ordinary people. Since you are trying to make claims about what the true "spirit of GNU" is, let me quote from the GNU manifesto: http://www.gnu.org/gnu/manifesto.html > Why All Computer Users Will Benefit > Once GNU is written, everyone will be able to obtain > Complete system sources will be available to everyone. > Schools will be able to provide a much more educational environment Note: "all", "everyone", "everyone", "schools" The spirit of GNU does not seem to talk about favouring an elite, on the contrary. "all" does not mean "a limited users' group". It means "all". And something regarding who has the upper moral ground from the GNU point of view: > "Don't programmers deserve a reward for their creativity?" > > If anything deserves a reward, it is social contribution. Creativity > can be a social contribution, but only in so far as society is free to > use the results. If programmers deserve to be rewarded for creating > innovative programs, by the same token they deserve to be punished if > they restrict the use of these programs. While i would not go so far as recommending punishment, i do agree with GNU that programmers who restrict the use of their programs should not be rewarded. If you disagree with the GNU point of view, that is your choice. > > Regarding Numerical Recipes, i suggest that everyone on this list read > > the License Information on page xxii of the f77 version, because there > > seems to have been some confusion raised by your earlier message: > > > > http://www.library.cornell.edu/nr/bookfpdf/f0-1.pdf > > > > > >>Copyright does not protect ideas, but only the expression of those > >>ideas in a particular form. In the case of a computer program, the ideas > >>consist of the program's methodology and algorithm, including the > >>necessary sequence of steps adopted by the programmer. The expression of > >>those ideas is the program source code (particularly any arbitrary or > >>stylistic choices embodied in it), its derived object code, and any > >>other derivative works. > >> > >>If you analyze the ideas contained in a program, and then express those > >>ideas in your own completely different implementation, then that new > >>program implementation belongs to you. That is what we have done for those > >>programs in this book that are not entirely of our own devising. > > 1. "own completely different implementation" - copy & paste, search & > replace is imho not sufficient and that seems to be the case. your > implementation is identical. It is not identical. The "methodology and algorithm, including the necessary sequence of steps" are close to identical, but AFAIR, no arbitrary or stylistic choices were identical. If you like, how about looking for any routines in gplnrec (if you have a copy from before we unilaterally stopped distribution) which are not covered by GSL, and then quote the code you think has identical arbitrary or stylistic choices. That way we could be constructive instead of getting distracted. Hmmm... except that it might be considered copyright infringement to quote code on a public list. This is again going around in circles and getting back to the main point: when code has any sort of restriction other than GNU GPL, it is very difficult to get it started, because if you discuss it publicly, it risks being a violation of the licence. On the other hand, under the GNU GPL, the quotation of a code fragment in a context where it is clear that it's covered by the GNU GPL is (i presume) consistent with the licence. > "Like artistic or literary compositions, computer programs are protected > by copyright. Generally it is an infringement for you to copy into your > computer a program from a copyrighted source." - from the very same > chapter you quote. > > For me it would be quite ok if you are inspired by Numerical Recipes and > include quite similar routines in your code in a limited number. But > what you have done is not just including the routines, you have created > a "GPLed" numerical package partly based on the source code from NR and > added the "Copyright by Boud Roukema". Wrong. i read the text quote above and tried to follow its recommendations. i may have made errors, and the benefit of the GNU GPL is that people can quickly correct such errors. > Is this not like being a Robin Hood? Or rather a false Prometheus? It is like being Numerical Recipes: "those programs in this book that are not entirely of our own devising" i have no idea how many Numerical Recipes routines consist of what some people might term "intellectual theft", but NR are clearly *not* embarrassed by this and they consider it legitimate that they have used the methodology and algorithms, including necessary sequences of steps, from other peoples' code. > 2. moreover, following you definition of what one can do with the Wrong: it is not my definition, it is Numerical Recipes' definition. Please do not blame me for what is published in Numerical Recipes. > copyrighted source code I can not see any point why I would not be > allowed to use your code (fealpix and others), rearrange it ("be > inspired") and release as copyrighted by me under a different license???? > > what I would use from your code would be: > - methodology, > - algorithm (including the necessary sequence of steps). > I would not take: > - arbitrary or stylistic choices (because I would rearrange the code). > > Would it be fair? According to the authors of Numerical Recipes, it would be fair. > > What NR claim can be copied: > > - the methodology > > - the algorithm > > - including the necessary sequence of steps > > > > What NR claim cannot be copied: > > - arbitrary or stylistic choices > > > > > > Do you disagree with Numerical Recipes' point of view on copyright? > > I agree but my understanding is different than yours. It's unclear whether you agree with Numerical Recipes' point of view on copyright or not. pozd boud From michalf w ncac.torun.pl Wed Mar 24 09:29:24 2004 From: michalf w ncac.torun.pl (Michal Frackowiak) Date: Wed, 24 Mar 2004 09:29:24 +0100 Subject: (1) pgplot licence vs other; (2) NR In-Reply-To: References: <4045CA2B.3000703@ncac.torun.pl> <40460D61.2000501@ncac.torun.pl> <4056E7BB.7080609@ncac.torun.pl> <40582883.6000206@ncac.torun.pl> Message-ID: <406146E4.5020401@ncac.torun.pl> 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. > >> 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. > > 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? 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. >>what I would use from your code would be: >> - methodology, >> - algorithm (including the necessary sequence of steps). >>I would not take: >> - arbitrary or stylistic choices (because I would rearrange the code). >> >>Would it be fair? > > > According to the authors of Numerical Recipes, it would be fair. So what would be the point of GPL if you can copy the source, change it and copyright again? I believe the truth is somewhere between. Anyhow imho gpl software should be as clear as possible without even shadows of copyright violation. Perhaps your arguments are ok and can convince others you are right - but there is still some darkness in this soft, with its "astropolitics" and copyleft. -- -------------------------------------------------------- Michal Frackowiak mail: michalf w ncac.torun.pl www: http://www.ncac.torun.pl/~michalf jabber im: michal_frackowiak w jabber.pl phone: +48 (56) 6219319 int. 22, fax: +48 (56) 6219381 -------------------------------------------------------- Nicolaus Copernicus Astronomical Center Department of Astrophysics in Torun (CAMK Torun) ul. Rabianska 8, 87-100 Torun, Poland http://www.ncac.torun.pl, http://www.camk.edu.pl -------------------------------------------------------- -------------- następna część --------- Binarny załącznik wiadomości został usunięty... Nazwa: signature.asc Typ: application/pgp-signature Rozmiar: 256 bytes Opis: OpenPGP digital signature Adres: From amr w astro.uni.torun.pl Thu Mar 25 10:06:14 2004 From: amr w astro.uni.torun.pl (Andrzej Marecki) Date: Thu, 25 Mar 2004 10:06:14 +0100 (MET) Subject: astro-ph/0403111 Message-ID: <200403250906.KAA10868@galileo.astro.uni.torun.pl> 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 From boud w astro.uni.torun.pl Thu Mar 25 10:54:39 2004 From: boud w astro.uni.torun.pl (Boud Roukema) Date: Thu, 25 Mar 2004 10:54:39 +0100 (CET) Subject: astro-ph/0403111 In-Reply-To: <200403250906.KAA10868@galileo.astro.uni.torun.pl> References: <200403250906.KAA10868@galileo.astro.uni.torun.pl> Message-ID: Witam, On Thu, 25 Mar 2004, Andrzej Marecki wrote: > 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 Here's their new abstract: > This paper has been withdrawn by the authors for future revision. IMHO, the paper (e.g. v3) has a few misunderstandings of what other people had already done or explained. - Their first point (Fig. 1) has been briefly discussed in my paper astro-ph/0007140, Section 2.1, for the COBE resolution. - E.g. Fig 2 shows two regions e and f which add different signals to sky regions which should be multiply imaged. But this is what the authors have already referred to as "these problems can be minimized .." - integrated SW and foreground contamination, so they thought they had a new problem, which was different to ISW and foreground problems, but really they're talking about the same problem. - They also state (2nd last paragraph) that "Cornish et al. [3] ... [make the] assumption that the k-mode fluctuations making contact with the circles are identical." If that were true, of course it would be a bad assumption by Cornish et al, but i'm sure they did not make this assumption. My own argument (e.g. in section 1.2.1 of astro-ph/9910272) regards the assumptions about the statistics of the perturbations ("k-mode fluctuations") which may be sufficiently wrong to invalidate a simulation, but that's unrelated to making the statement that Gausmann and Opher made. In fact, the problem is that any eigenmode (or "k-mode") fills the whole 3-manifold, whether these are eigenmodes of the fundamental domain (which they should be) or of the covering space (which would be wrong), so it's not really clear what the authors were thinking when they wrote the sentence... Anyway, it's good that people are thinking about the geometry. pozd boud From boud w astro.uni.torun.pl Fri Mar 26 13:37:29 2004 From: boud w astro.uni.torun.pl (Boud Roukema) Date: Fri, 26 Mar 2004 13:37:29 +0100 (CET) Subject: 2 topo articles on astro-ph in 1 day! Message-ID: 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 From boud w astro.uni.torun.pl Tue Mar 30 15:10:49 2004 From: boud w astro.uni.torun.pl (Boud Roukema) Date: Tue, 30 Mar 2004 15:10:49 +0200 (CEST) Subject: atto-cosmology: NOAA terrestrian warming goes non-linear? Message-ID: 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 From boud w astro.uni.torun.pl Tue Mar 30 21:40:24 2004 From: boud w astro.uni.torun.pl (Boud Roukema) Date: Tue, 30 Mar 2004 21:40:24 +0200 (CEST) Subject: 2 topo articles on astro-ph in 1 day! In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Fri, 26 Mar 2004, Boud Roukema wrote: > 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 Sorry for the wrong link, that should be: > http://de.arxiv.org/abs/hep-ph/0402267 pozdr boud From boud w astro.uni.torun.pl Wed Mar 31 13:09:46 2004 From: boud w astro.uni.torun.pl (Boud Roukema) Date: Wed, 31 Mar 2004 13:09:46 +0200 (CEST) Subject: (1) pgplot licence vs other; (2) NR (fwd) Message-ID: 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 From michalf w ncac.torun.pl Wed Mar 3 17:52:49 2004 From: michalf w ncac.torun.pl (Michal Frackowiak) Date: Wed, 03 Mar 2004 17:52:49 +0100 Subject: fealpix vs healpix - it stinks for me In-Reply-To: <4045CA2B.3000703@ncac.torun.pl> References: <4045CA2B.3000703@ncac.torun.pl> Message-ID: <40460D61.2000501@ncac.torun.pl> at least www.gnu.org works. To bring you more arguments WHY fealpix does not come in the spirit of gnu, please see: http://www.gnupress.org/potentialauthors.html - Information for Potential Authors and http://www.gnu.org/prep/standards.html#SEC31 - GNU Coding Standards more or less these are the things I have already pointed out. including trolling about proprietary software. as you can see fealpix does not follow any of the gnu software directions so all this rumor about making scientific software free does not make any sense in the context of gnu. moreover it gives people false opinion about gnu system and the gnu idea of free software. regards - michal From boud w astro.uni.torun.pl Mon Mar 8 15:24:41 2004 From: boud w astro.uni.torun.pl (Boud Roukema) Date: Mon, 8 Mar 2004 15:24:41 +0100 (CET) Subject: mirror matter + DAMA/NaI => CDM solved ? Message-ID: 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. From boud w astro.uni.torun.pl Tue Mar 9 13:20:12 2004 From: boud w astro.uni.torun.pl (Boud Roukema) Date: Tue, 9 Mar 2004 13:20:12 +0100 (CET) Subject: A&A impact factor: the danger of productivist ideology Message-ID: 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. From boud w astro.uni.torun.pl Sat Mar 13 01:19:51 2004 From: boud w astro.uni.torun.pl (Boud Roukema) Date: Sat, 13 Mar 2004 01:19:51 +0100 (CET) Subject: bazanski - soft@ mailing list Message-ID: 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 From michalf w ncac.torun.pl Tue Mar 16 12:40:43 2004 From: michalf w ncac.torun.pl (Michal Frackowiak) Date: Tue, 16 Mar 2004 12:40:43 +0100 Subject: fealpix vs healpix - it stinks for me In-Reply-To: <40460D61.2000501@ncac.torun.pl> References: <4045CA2B.3000703@ncac.torun.pl> <40460D61.2000501@ncac.torun.pl> Message-ID: <4056E7BB.7080609@ncac.torun.pl> the last straw: what about pgplot? it is not "free". moreover, it is almost exactly as free as HEALPix: pgplot: "PGPLOT is /not/ public-domain software. However, it is freely available for non-commercial use. The source code and documentation are copyrighted by California Institute of Technology, and may not be redistributed or placed on public Web servers without permission. The software is provided ``as is'' with no warranty." healpix: "The permission to use, without authorization to distribute, the HEALPix software and its documentation without fee or royalty is hereby granted to individual registered users (see the HEALPix site http://www.eso.org/science/healpix) PROVIDED that the preceding copyright notices and the following statements are complied with: - Applications are limited to non-commercial and not-for-profit purposes. - An appropriate acknowledgment is included in all publications based on work conducted with usage of the HEALPix package" there are only 2 differences: registration required with healpix (not a big problem, it is nice to watch as package spreads and I suppose I would do the same) and acknowledgment in publications (which is obvious for me). so why do you not object using pgplot (you use it for every plot in "fealpix") but started this campaign with healpix?????? --------- I realize the case is somehow over but your vision of free software really astonishes me. I also realize there will be no public response (in the sense of this mailing list) simply because there is not much to discuss and we have discussed some things at the last Cafe. I really hope all this is coming to the end. best regards michal Michal Frackowiak wrote: > at least www.gnu.org works. To bring you more arguments WHY fealpix > does not come in the spirit of gnu, please see: > http://www.gnupress.org/potentialauthors.html - Information for > Potential Authors > and > http://www.gnu.org/prep/standards.html#SEC31 - GNU Coding Standards > > more or less these are the things I have already pointed out. > including trolling about proprietary software. > > as you can see fealpix does not follow any of the gnu software > directions so all this rumor about making scientific software free > does not make any sense in the context of gnu. moreover it gives > people false opinion about gnu system and the gnu idea of free software. > > regards - michal > > > > >------------------------------------------------------------------------ > >LISTNAME: cosmo-torun >HELP: send an email to sympa w astro.uni.torun.pl with "help" >WEB ARCHIVE: http://www.astro.uni.torun.pl/sympa/cosmo-torun/ >UNSUBSCRIBE: email to sympa w astro.uni.torun.pl with "unsubscribe cosmo-torun" > > > > -- -------------------------------------------------------- Michal Frackowiak mail: michalf w ncac.torun.pl www: http://www.ncac.torun.pl/~michalf jabber im: michal_frackowiak w jabber.pl phone: +48 (56) 6219319 int. 22, fax: +48 (56) 6219381 -------------------------------------------------------- Nicolaus Copernicus Astronomical Center Department of Astrophysics in Torun (CAMK Torun) ul. Rabianska 8, 87-100 Torun, Poland http://www.ncac.torun.pl, http://www.camk.edu.pl -------------------------------------------------------- -------------- następna część --------- Załącznik HTML został usunięty... URL: -------------- następna część --------- Binarny załącznik wiadomości został usunięty... Nazwa: signature.asc Typ: application/pgp-signature Rozmiar: 256 bytes Opis: OpenPGP digital signature Adres: From boud w astro.uni.torun.pl Tue Mar 16 13:55:44 2004 From: boud w astro.uni.torun.pl (Boud Roukema) Date: Tue, 16 Mar 2004 13:55:44 +0100 (CET) Subject: (1) pgplot licence vs other; (2) NR In-Reply-To: <4056E7BB.7080609@ncac.torun.pl> References: <4045CA2B.3000703@ncac.torun.pl> <40460D61.2000501@ncac.torun.pl> <4056E7BB.7080609@ncac.torun.pl> Message-ID: witam Michał, Hopefully we can discuss the general points of view about programming on the open list and noone will complain. It's clear there are misunderstandings and confusions between you and i, but i'm sure we can sort this out constructively. :) Does it seem reasonable that anyone who chooses to respond publicly on this list accepts that we are trying to understand each other regarding coding issues and we accept criticisms with the assumption that they are intended to be constructive, even they are strongly worded, without being upset? :) === The differences between the pgplot licence and some other licence === (1) distribution: pgplot can be downloaded immediately without delay, without requiring any subjective decisions by the owners on whether or not to accept the request for registration. (2) pgplot does not require the use of further non-free packages Regarding (1), could you imagine someone installing a whole lot of packages, maybe with gentoo or debian, and having to wait three days for the successive installation of each of 15 different packages? That would make 45 days if the person installing does not know in advance what the dependencies of the packages are. IMHO, taking 45 days (or anything of a similar order of magnitude) to fully install a package is clearly something utterly impractical. Since pgplot has (1) + (2), it only takes half an hour for someone fairly new to it to install. Of course, if someone wants to replace pgplot by a completely free plotting routine, i would certainly not object (and under the GNU GPL, would not have the right to object). Regarding Numerical Recipes, i suggest that everyone on this list read the License Information on page xxii of the f77 version, because there seems to have been some confusion raised by your earlier message: http://www.library.cornell.edu/nr/bookfpdf/f0-1.pdf > Copyright does not protect ideas, but only the expression of those > ideas in a particular form. In the case of a computer program, the ideas > consist of the program's methodology and algorithm, including the > necessary sequence of steps adopted by the programmer. The expression of > those ideas is the program source code (particularly any arbitrary or > stylistic choices embodied in it), its derived object code, and any > other derivative works. > > If you analyze the ideas contained in a program, and then express those > ideas in your own completely different implementation, then that new > program implementation belongs to you. That is what we have done for those > programs in this book that are not entirely of our own devising. What NR claim can be copied: - the methodology - the algorithm - including the necessary sequence of steps What NR claim cannot be copied: - arbitrary or stylistic choices Do you disagree with Numerical Recipes' point of view on copyright? Regarding software strategy, it might be strategically wise to ignore NR's recommendation and use a different algorithm - i would agree with this. pozd boud On Tue, 16 Mar 2004, Michal Frackowiak wrote: > the last straw: what about pgplot? it is not "free". moreover, it is > almost exactly as free as HEALPix: > > pgplot: > "PGPLOT is /not/ public-domain software. However, it is freely available > for non-commercial use. The source code and documentation are > copyrighted by California Institute of Technology, and may not be > redistributed or placed on public Web servers without permission. The > software is provided ``as is'' with no warranty." > > healpix: > "The permission to use, without authorization to distribute, the HEALPix > software and its documentation without fee or royalty is hereby granted > to individual registered users > (see the HEALPix site http://www.eso.org/science/healpix) > PROVIDED that the preceding copyright notices > and the following statements are complied with: > - Applications are limited to non-commercial and not-for-profit purposes. > - An appropriate acknowledgment is included in all publications > based on work conducted with usage of the HEALPix package" > > there are only 2 differences: registration required with healpix (not a > big problem, it is nice to watch as package spreads and I suppose I > would do the same) and acknowledgment in publications (which is obvious > for me). > > so why do you not object using pgplot (you use it for every plot in > "fealpix") but started this campaign with healpix?????? > > --------- > > I realize the case is somehow over but your vision of free software > really astonishes me. I also realize there will be no public response > (in the sense of this mailing list) simply because there is not much to > discuss and we have discussed some things at the last Cafe. I really > hope all this is coming to the end. > > best regards > > michal > > > > > Michal Frackowiak wrote: > > > at least www.gnu.org works. To bring you more arguments WHY fealpix > > does not come in the spirit of gnu, please see: > > http://www.gnupress.org/potentialauthors.html - Information for > > Potential Authors > > and > > http://www.gnu.org/prep/standards.html#SEC31 - GNU Coding Standards > > > > more or less these are the things I have already pointed out. > > including trolling about proprietary software. > > > > as you can see fealpix does not follow any of the gnu software > > directions so all this rumor about making scientific software free > > does not make any sense in the context of gnu. moreover it gives > > people false opinion about gnu system and the gnu idea of free software. > > > > regards - michal > > > > > > > > > >------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > > >LISTNAME: cosmo-torun > >HELP: send an email to sympa w astro.uni.torun.pl with "help" > >WEB ARCHIVE: http://www.astro.uni.torun.pl/sympa/cosmo-torun/ > >UNSUBSCRIBE: email to sympa w astro.uni.torun.pl with "unsubscribe cosmo-torun" > > > > > > > > > > > -- > -------------------------------------------------------- > Michal Frackowiak > mail: michalf w ncac.torun.pl > www: http://www.ncac.torun.pl/~michalf > jabber im: michal_frackowiak w jabber.pl > phone: +48 (56) 6219319 int. 22, fax: +48 (56) 6219381 > -------------------------------------------------------- > Nicolaus Copernicus Astronomical Center > Department of Astrophysics in Torun (CAMK Torun) > ul. Rabianska 8, 87-100 Torun, Poland > http://www.ncac.torun.pl, http://www.camk.edu.pl > -------------------------------------------------------- > > From boud w astro.uni.torun.pl Tue Mar 16 14:27:30 2004 From: boud w astro.uni.torun.pl (Boud Roukema) Date: Tue, 16 Mar 2004 14:27:30 +0100 (CET) Subject: GNU vs GNU GPL In-Reply-To: References: <4045CA2B.3000703@ncac.torun.pl> <40460D61.2000501@ncac.torun.pl> <4056E7BB.7080609@ncac.torun.pl> Message-ID: hi again Michał, On Tue, 16 Mar 2004, Boud Roukema wrote: > On Tue, 16 Mar 2004, Michal Frackowiak wrote: > > > > Michal Frackowiak wrote: > > > directions so all this rumor about making scientific software free > > > does not make any sense in the context of gnu. moreover it gives > > > people false opinion about gnu system and the gnu idea of free software. > > > > > > regards - michal i'm afraid there is a misunderstanding here. GNU and GNU GPL are two completely different things. - GNU is a major part of an operating system. - GNU GPL is a licence. There was never any intention to suggest that the code is GNU code. The term "GNU GPL" was used because it means "GNU's Not Unix General Public License", it is *not* "GNU Public License". pozd boud From michalf w ncac.torun.pl Wed Mar 17 11:29:23 2004 From: michalf w ncac.torun.pl (Michal Frackowiak) Date: Wed, 17 Mar 2004 11:29:23 +0100 Subject: (1) pgplot licence vs other; (2) NR In-Reply-To: References: <4045CA2B.3000703@ncac.torun.pl> <40460D61.2000501@ncac.torun.pl> <4056E7BB.7080609@ncac.torun.pl> Message-ID: <40582883.6000206@ncac.torun.pl> Hi! about GNU and GPL: 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 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. see my other comments below: Boud Roukema wrote: > > === The differences between the pgplot licence and some other licence === > > (1) distribution: pgplot can be downloaded immediately without delay, > without requiring any subjective decisions by the owners on whether or not > to accept the request for registration. > > (2) pgplot does not require the use of further non-free packages > HEALpix is being ported do C and some routines (reading and writing images as I remember) are already available. > Regarding (1), could you imagine someone installing a whole lot of > packages, maybe with gentoo or debian, and having to wait three days > for the successive installation of each of 15 different packages? > > That would make 45 days if the person installing does not know in > advance what the dependencies of the packages are. > > IMHO, taking 45 days (or anything of a similar order of magnitude) > to fully install a package is clearly something utterly impractical. > It is not an argument nor a nice analogy. It seems as you are the only one that hates the registration process. HEALpix is a very specialized package with the very limiter users group. I can not see anything wrong if the author of such a package wants its users to register. > > Regarding Numerical Recipes, i suggest that everyone on this list read > the License Information on page xxii of the f77 version, because there > seems to have been some confusion raised by your earlier message: > > http://www.library.cornell.edu/nr/bookfpdf/f0-1.pdf > > >>Copyright does not protect ideas, but only the expression of those >>ideas in a particular form. In the case of a computer program, the ideas >>consist of the program's methodology and algorithm, including the >>necessary sequence of steps adopted by the programmer. The expression of >>those ideas is the program source code (particularly any arbitrary or >>stylistic choices embodied in it), its derived object code, and any >>other derivative works. >> >>If you analyze the ideas contained in a program, and then express those >>ideas in your own completely different implementation, then that new >>program implementation belongs to you. That is what we have done for those >>programs in this book that are not entirely of our own devising. 1. "own completely different implementation" - copy & paste, search & replace is imho not sufficient and that seems to be the case. your implementation is identical. "Like artistic or literary compositions, computer programs are protected by copyright. Generally it is an infringement for you to copy into your computer a program from a copyrighted source." - from the very same chapter you quote. For me it would be quite ok if you are inspired by Numerical Recipes and include quite similar routines in your code in a limited number. But what you have done is not just including the routines, you have created a "GPLed" numerical package partly based on the source code from NR and added the "Copyright by Boud Roukema". Is this not like being a Robin Hood? Or rather a false Prometheus? 2. moreover, following you definition of what one can do with the copyrighted source code I can not see any point why I would not be allowed to use your code (fealpix and others), rearrange it ("be inspired") and release as copyrighted by me under a different license???? what I would use from your code would be: - methodology, - algorithm (including the necessary sequence of steps). I would not take: - arbitrary or stylistic choices (because I would rearrange the code). Would it be fair? > > > What NR claim can be copied: > - the methodology > - the algorithm > - including the necessary sequence of steps > > What NR claim cannot be copied: > - arbitrary or stylistic choices > > > Do you disagree with Numerical Recipes' point of view on copyright? I agree but my understanding is different than yours. > > On Tue, 16 Mar 2004, Michal Frackowiak wrote: > > >>the last straw: what about pgplot? it is not "free". moreover, it is >>almost exactly as free as HEALPix: >> >>pgplot: >>"PGPLOT is /not/ public-domain software. However, it is freely available >>for non-commercial use. The source code and documentation are >>copyrighted by California Institute of Technology, and may not be >>redistributed or placed on public Web servers without permission. The >>software is provided ``as is'' with no warranty." >> >>healpix: >>"The permission to use, without authorization to distribute, the HEALPix >>software and its documentation without fee or royalty is hereby granted >>to individual registered users >>(see the HEALPix site http://www.eso.org/science/healpix) >>PROVIDED that the preceding copyright notices >>and the following statements are complied with: >>- Applications are limited to non-commercial and not-for-profit purposes. >>- An appropriate acknowledgment is included in all publications >>based on work conducted with usage of the HEALPix package" >> >>there are only 2 differences: registration required with healpix (not a >>big problem, it is nice to watch as package spreads and I suppose I >>would do the same) and acknowledgment in publications (which is obvious >>for me). >> >>so why do you not object using pgplot (you use it for every plot in >>"fealpix") but started this campaign with healpix?????? >> >>--------- >> >>I realize the case is somehow over but your vision of free software >>really astonishes me. I also realize there will be no public response >>(in the sense of this mailing list) simply because there is not much to >>discuss and we have discussed some things at the last Cafe. I really >>hope all this is coming to the end. >> >>best regards >> >>michal >> >> >> >> >>Michal Frackowiak wrote: >> >> >>>at least www.gnu.org works. To bring you more arguments WHY fealpix >>>does not come in the spirit of gnu, please see: >>>http://www.gnupress.org/potentialauthors.html - Information for >>>Potential Authors >>>and >>>http://www.gnu.org/prep/standards.html#SEC31 - GNU Coding Standards >>> >>>more or less these are the things I have already pointed out. >>>including trolling about proprietary software. >>> >>>as you can see fealpix does not follow any of the gnu software >>>directions so all this rumor about making scientific software free >>>does not make any sense in the context of gnu. moreover it gives >>>people false opinion about gnu system and the gnu idea of free software. >>> >>>regards - michal >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>------------------------------------------------------------------------ >>> >>>LISTNAME: cosmo-torun >>>HELP: send an email to sympa w astro.uni.torun.pl with "help" >>>WEB ARCHIVE: http://www.astro.uni.torun.pl/sympa/cosmo-torun/ >>>UNSUBSCRIBE: email to sympa w astro.uni.torun.pl with "unsubscribe cosmo-torun" >>> >>> >>> >>> >> >> >>-- >>-------------------------------------------------------- >>Michal Frackowiak >>mail: michalf w ncac.torun.pl >>www: http://www.ncac.torun.pl/~michalf >>jabber im: michal_frackowiak w jabber.pl >>phone: +48 (56) 6219319 int. 22, fax: +48 (56) 6219381 >>-------------------------------------------------------- >>Nicolaus Copernicus Astronomical Center >>Department of Astrophysics in Torun (CAMK Torun) >>ul. Rabianska 8, 87-100 Torun, Poland >>http://www.ncac.torun.pl, http://www.camk.edu.pl >>-------------------------------------------------------- >> >> >> >> >>------------------------------------------------------------------------ >> >>LISTNAME: cosmo-torun >>HELP: send an email to sympa w astro.uni.torun.pl with "help" >>WEB ARCHIVE: http://www.astro.uni.torun.pl/sympa/cosmo-torun/ >>UNSUBSCRIBE: email to sympa w astro.uni.torun.pl with "unsubscribe cosmo-torun" >> >> -- -------------------------------------------------------- Michal Frackowiak mail: michalf w ncac.torun.pl www: http://www.ncac.torun.pl/~michalf jabber im: michal_frackowiak w jabber.pl phone: +48 (56) 6219319 int. 22, fax: +48 (56) 6219381 -------------------------------------------------------- Nicolaus Copernicus Astronomical Center Department of Astrophysics in Torun (CAMK Torun) ul. Rabianska 8, 87-100 Torun, Poland http://www.ncac.torun.pl, http://www.camk.edu.pl -------------------------------------------------------- -------------- następna część --------- Binarny załącznik wiadomości został usunięty... Nazwa: signature.asc Typ: application/pgp-signature Rozmiar: 256 bytes Opis: OpenPGP digital signature Adres: