[SciPy-user] lowess in scipy?
robert.kern at gmail.com
Tue Jan 23 18:35:10 CST 2007
Bill Baxter wrote:
> On 1/23/07, Robert Kern <robert.kern at gmail.com> wrote:
>> Gael Varoquaux wrote:
>>> On Mon, Jan 22, 2007 at 09:07:11PM -0600, Robert Kern wrote:
>>>> * The authors of this software are Cleveland, Grosse, and Shyu.
>>>> * Copyright (c) 1989, 1992 by AT&T.
>>>> * Permission to use, copy, modify, and distribute this software for any
>>>> * purpose without fee is hereby granted, provided that this entire notice
>>>> * is included in all copies of any software which is or includes a copy
>>>> * or modification of this software and in all copies of the supporting
>>>> * documentation for such software.
>>>> * THIS SOFTWARE IS BEING PROVIDED "AS IS", WITHOUT ANY EXPRESS OR IMPLIED
>>>> * WARRANTY. IN PARTICULAR, NEITHER THE AUTHORS NOR AT&T MAKE ANY
>>>> * REPRESENTATION OR WARRANTY OF ANY KIND CONCERNING THE MERCHANTABILITY
>>>> * OF THIS SOFTWARE OR ITS FITNESS FOR ANY PARTICULAR PURPOSE.
>>> Now I am being stupid, but what kind of license is that ?
>> It's substantially similar to the MIT license.
>> It's scipy-compatible, which is all that I care about.
> SciPy allows such advertising clauses?
What advertising clause? The documentation clause is not the same thing as an
advertising clause. Scipy's license has a similar one:
b. Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the above copyright
notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer in the
documentation and/or other materials provided with the distribution.
If you want a good overview of how to interpret open source licenses and the
various legal issues surrounding them, I suggest Larry Rosen's book _Open Source
Licensing: Software Freedom and Intellectual Property Law_ available under an
open source license itself:
"I have come to believe that the whole world is an enigma, a harmless enigma
that is made terrible by our own mad attempt to interpret it as though it had
an underlying truth."
-- Umberto Eco
More information about the SciPy-user