Missing COPYING file

[Jonathan Underwood]

The distributed tarball doesn't contain a copy of the COPYING file. I am packaging ufc for Fedora/EPEL, and this will be one of the things that will be rasied in the review.

[Anders Logg (logg)]

There seems to be only one file (src/utils/python/ufc_utils/build.py)
which is not public domain.

It is written by Johan Hake and modified by Martin Alnaes. I assume it
can also go into the public domain to simplify the licensing (and the
COPYING file).

Can Johan and Martin confirm this?

--
Anders

On Fri, May 04, 2012 at 11:06:04AM -0000, Jonathan Underwood wrote:
> Public bug reported:
>
> The distributed tarball doesn't contain a copy of the COPYING file. I am
> packaging ufc for Fedora/EPEL, and this will be one of the things that
> will be rasied in the review.
>
> ** Affects: ufc
> Importance: Undecided
> Status: New
>

[Johan Hake (johan-hake)]

AFAIK that file should be in the public domain. It is probably just an
error.

Johan

On 05/04/2012 01:37 PM, Anders Logg wrote:
> There seems to be only one file (src/utils/python/ufc_utils/build.py)
> which is not public domain.
>
> It is written by Johan Hake and modified by Martin Alnaes. I assume it
> can also go into the public domain to simplify the licensing (and the
> COPYING file).
>
> Can Johan and Martin confirm this?
>
> --
> Anders
>
>
> On Fri, May 04, 2012 at 11:06:04AM -0000, Jonathan Underwood wrote:
>> Public bug reported:
>>
>> The distributed tarball doesn't contain a copy of the COPYING file. I am
>> packaging ufc for Fedora/EPEL, and this will be one of the things that
>> will be rasied in the review.
>>
>> ** Affects: ufc
>> Importance: Undecided
>> Status: New
>>

[Jonathan Underwood (jonathan-underwood)]

OK - but even if it is all public domain, it would be helpfule to have a COPYING or LICENSE file clearly stating this (and the authors, perhaps).

[Anders Logg (logg)]

On Fri, May 04, 2012 at 12:08:05PM -0000, Jonathan Underwood wrote:
> OK - but even if it is all public domain, it would be helpfule to have a
> COPYING or LICENSE file clearly stating this (and the authors,
> perhaps).

Yes, definitely. We will add one (or both).

There just seems to be some confusion as to what the licensing terms
should actually be.

--
Anders

[Anders Logg (logg)]

On Fri, May 04, 2012 at 02:33:45PM +0200, Anders Logg wrote:
> On Fri, May 04, 2012 at 12:08:05PM -0000, Jonathan Underwood wrote:
> > OK - but even if it is all public domain, it would be helpfule to have a
> > COPYING or LICENSE file clearly stating this (and the authors,
> > perhaps).
>
> Yes, definitely. We will add one (or both).
>
> There just seems to be some confusion as to what the licensing terms
> should actually be.

We're just waiting for OK from Martin.

Martin, are you ok with your changes to

  ./src/utils/python/ufc_utils/build.py

being put in the public domain?

--
Anders

[Martin Sandve Alnæs (martinal)]

On 7 May 2012 13:46, Anders Logg <email address hidden> wrote:
> On Fri, May 04, 2012 at 02:33:45PM +0200, Anders Logg wrote:
>> On Fri, May 04, 2012 at 12:08:05PM -0000, Jonathan Underwood wrote:
>> > OK - but even if it is all public domain, it would be helpfule to have a
>> > COPYING or LICENSE file clearly stating this (and the authors,
>> > perhaps).
>>
>> Yes, definitely. We will add one (or both).
>>
>> There just seems to be some confusion as to what the licensing terms
>> should actually be.
>
> We're just waiting for OK from Martin.
>
> Martin, are you ok with your changes to
>
>  ./src/utils/python/ufc_utils/build.py
>
> being put in the public domain?
>
> --
> Anders

I'm ok with that.

Martin

[Martin Sandve Alnæs (martinal)]

I'm ok with that.

[Anders Logg (logg)]

On Mon, May 07, 2012 at 02:20:15PM +0200, Martin Sandve Alnæs wrote:
> On 7 May 2012 13:46, Anders Logg <email address hidden> wrote:
> > On Fri, May 04, 2012 at 02:33:45PM +0200, Anders Logg wrote:
> >> On Fri, May 04, 2012 at 12:08:05PM -0000, Jonathan Underwood wrote:
> >> > OK - but even if it is all public domain, it would be helpfule to have a
> >> > COPYING or LICENSE file clearly stating this (and the authors,
> >> > perhaps).
> >>
> >> Yes, definitely. We will add one (or both).
> >>
> >> There just seems to be some confusion as to what the licensing terms
> >> should actually be.
> >
> > We're just waiting for OK from Martin.
> >
> > Martin, are you ok with your changes to
> >
> >  ./src/utils/python/ufc_utils/build.py
> >
> > being put in the public domain?
>
> I'm ok with that.

Good. Johannes, can you add COPYING and LICENSE files and modify the
copyright statement in that file? Thanks.

--
Anders