Jeff Whitaker wrote:
Robert: But this refers to modifications made to it "in the same file". The way I read this, if we don't change his source files we can redistribute them any way we want, as long as we leave the CSIRO copyright notices alone.
I think Robert already answered this one: while we cold do that, we would then be distributing code with MPL that carried extra restrictions, so that MPL users couldn't modify it at will. I agree that this is to be avoided.
Perhaps it's time to start a SciPy-extras collection that includes code under other, weird licenses.
This would be SO much easier of people throwing their code out on the Internet would just use one of the common licensing schemes.
I still think it's worth talking to the author, however. As Robert pointed out, these folks are clearly not all that cluefull about open source licenses. They may have little idea what they really are restricting. As a simple example, someone on the wxPython list has been developing a bunch of nifty higher-level widgets, hoping to get them included in the wxPython lib. However, he had released them all under the GPL, just because he didn't know any better. When someone wrote to him, pointing out that his stuff couldn't be used in any non-GPL projects, it turns out that wasn't his intent. I think he's going to re-release it all under the wxWidgets license (modified LGPL).
However, it looks like this one may be standard CSIRO policy, so the author may have no choice, and changing an institutional policy is MUCH harder!
Another, semi-related, thought: I feel strongly that MPL should focus on being a plotting library, NOT a full blown computational environment. That should be the focus of SciPy. Therefore, code to interpolate unstructured data would be better put into SciPy than MPL. Same licensing issues, of course.
Christopher Barker, Ph.D.
NOAA/OR&R/HAZMAT (206) 526-6959 voice
7600 Sand Point Way NE (206) 526-6329 fax
Seattle, WA 98115 (206) 526-6317 main reception