Re: licence for "More Zernike polynomial related stuff for the Optics Package"

[Carnë Draug]

On 10 April 2016 at 05:08, Nicholas Jankowski <address@hidden> wrote:
>
> On Apr 9, 2016 4:07 PM, "Carnë Draug" <address@hidden> wrote:
>>
>> Changing email subject since this is a very different issue.
>>
>> On 9 April 2016 at 08:26, Andreas Weber <address@hidden> wrote:
>> > [...]
>> >
>> > @maintainers: Is there a problem to add code which is in the public
>> > domain to forge packages? The optics package itself is GPLv3+
>> >
>> > The scripts in question have this part:
>> >
>> > % This software was developed at the National Institute of Standards and
>> > Technology
>> >  by employees of the Federal Government in the course of their official
>> > duties.
>> >  Pursuant to title 17 Section 105 of the United States Code this
>> > software is not
>> >  subject to copyright protection and is in the public domain. This
>> > software is an
>> >  experimental system. NIST assumes no responsibility whatsoever for its
>> > use by other
>> >  parties, and makes no guarantees, expressed or implied, about its
>> > quality, reliability,
>> >  or any other characteristic.
>> >
>> > %
>> >
>> > % This software can be redistributed and/or modified freely provided
>> > that any derivative
>> >  works bear some notice that they are derived from it, and any modified
>> > versions bear
>> >  some notice that they have been modified.
>> >  We would appreciate acknowledgement if the software is used.
>> >
>>
>> There is no problem with adding code in the public domain.  However, the
>> second paragraph adds conditions for the distribution and modification
>> so the code is not in the public domain.  The second paragraph (which
>> lists
>> conditions) contradicts the first (which claims the code is public
>> domain).
>> Can this be clarified?
>>
>> Since the code is not in the public domain, the code must be under a
>> GPL compatible license (any of [1]).  Despite the given conditions being
>> very simple, they are not a standard license.  It is advised to pick a
>> standard one (see informal section [2]).
>>
>> Carnë
>>
>> [1]
>> https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.en.html#GPLCompatibleLicenses
>> [2] https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.en.html#informal
>>
>
> The nice thing about this one is that the first paragraph trumps the second.
> If P.1 is true, which if their employment status is accurate it would be,
> then those second paragraph stipulations can be noting more than requests,
> not requirements.  US law stipulates that the work of Federal Employees is
> public domain. "Please acknowledge the work, don't out right plagiarize it"
> is the most they can ask.
>

We don't know that.  We don't know the origin of the second paragraph.
They could have based their work on code with tha license.  Or maybe the
opposite, they based their work on code in the public domain.

Whatever it is, this needs clarification from upstream.

Carnë