[SciPy-Dev] Loess license

[Andy Ray Terrel]

On Wed, Nov 4, 2015 at 9:27 PM, Hassan Kibirige <has2k1 at gmail.com> wrote:

> I am not worried about the compiler warnings, (there are 4 according
> to gcc-4.9.3). There are two key patches:
>
> 1. http://git.io/vlhNP



This patch was pushed up stream.
https://stat.ethz.ch/pipermail/r-devel/2009-March/052439.html


>
> 2. http://git.io/vlhNQ


This one probably requires permission from Prof. Ripley (
https://stat.ethz.ch/pipermail/r-devel/2009-March/052542.html )
alternatively the bug only exists for order 0 (as the original code
required).


>
>
> I have not looked into the details of the problems they address however,
> I think the 2nd stems from this issue.
>
> https://stat.ethz.ch/pipermail/r-devel/2009-March/052392.html
>
> Hassan
>
>
> On Wednesday 04 November 2015 8:53:54 PM Andy Ray Terrel wrote:
> > This one ( http://git.io/vlh72 ) is still very much GPL with marking on
> > every file. All the rest seem pretty minor (whitespace and edits from
> > compiler warnings).
> >
> > -- Andy
> >
> > On Wed, Nov 4, 2015 at 6:37 PM, Stephan Hoyer <shoyer at gmail.com> wrote:
> > > So unfortunately, R is GPL licensed. These new contributions don't
> have a
> > > specific license attached, but arguably as new contributions they are
> > > actually licensed under GPL, not the original license. I'm not a
> lawyer,
> > > but I think the safest path forward would be to contact the original
> > > authors of the R patch and ask if they are willing to relicense it as
> BSD.
> > >
> > > Best,
> > > Stephan
> > >
> > > On Wed, Nov 4, 2015 at 2:30 PM, Hassan Kibirige <has2k1 at gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > >> I am resurrecting the loess code that was part of the deleted
> > >> `scipy.sandbox`
> > >> sub-package. It turns out that R uses the same core fortran code as it
> > >> was
> > >> published under a permissive licence (BSD-3 spirit) [1].
> > >>
> > >> The issue is, there are patches [2] that have been submitted to R and
> not
> > >> to
> > >> the upstream source [3]. The code in R still carries the permissive
> > >> upstream
> > >> licence [4]. Is it okay to adopt those changes?
> > >>
> > >> [1] http://git.io/vlpfV
> > >> [2] http://git.io/vlpvF
> > >> [3] http://netlib.org/a/loess
> > >> [4] http://git.io/vlxj7
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> Hassan
> > >> _______________________________________________
> > >> SciPy-Dev mailing list
> > >> SciPy-Dev at scipy.org
> > >> https://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/scipy-dev
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > SciPy-Dev mailing list
> > > SciPy-Dev at scipy.org
> > > https://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/scipy-dev
> _______________________________________________
> SciPy-Dev mailing list
> SciPy-Dev at scipy.org
> https://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/scipy-dev
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.python.org/pipermail/scipy-dev/attachments/20151104/6f88ff18/attachment.html>