This is the mail archive of the
fortran@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GNU Fortran project.
Re: [patch, gfortran] pr22570 and related issues.
- From: Brooks Moses <bmoses at stanford dot edu>
- To: fortran at gcc dot gnu dot org
- Date: Thu, 28 Jul 2005 10:52:38 -0700
- Subject: Re: [patch, gfortran] pr22570 and related issues.
- Organization: Stanford University
- References: <20050728140707.820A41DC0BB@bromo.msbb.uc.edu>
Jack Howarth wrote [on the NIST suite license]:
Please note that within the United States, copyright protection, under
> Section 105 of the United States Code, Title 17, is not available for
> any work of the United States Government and/or for any works created
> by United States Government employees. User acknowledges that these
> test suites contain work which was created by NIST employees and is
> therefore in the public domain and not subject to copyright. The User
> may use, distribute, or incorporate these test suites provided the
> User acknowledges this via an explicit acknowledgment of NIST-related
> contributions to the User's work. User also agrees to acknowledge, via
> an explicit acknowledgment, that any modifications or alterations have
> been made to these test suites before redistribution.
Not being an expert on GPL, those terms seem close enough to GPL that NIST
could easily relicense the packages using those terms under GPL. Of course
going those all the adminstrative hoops to do that would be a lot of work
for sure.
That's a really weird definition of "public domain" that they seem to be
using in those terms. If it's really in public domain, we should be
free to do whatever we want to with it -- GPL it, copy it, sell it,
whatever -- except for claiming our own copyright on it, and the
requirement to acknowledge NIST's contributions is a moral one with no
legal teeth whatsoever. (Insert usual "but I'm not a lawyer so I don't
know for sure" disclaimer here.)
My guess is, if there's worth the bother of incorporating it into the
gfortran test suite, we should send off an email to FSF's legal team
asking them for a confirmation on the matter, but it certainly appears
to my non-lawyer eye from that "license" that a "User" would be free to
give the code (in, presumably, a modified-to-fit-the-testsuite form) to
FSF with no restrictions whatsoever, and FSF could then quite
legitimately distribute it with the rest of gfortran's test suite.
(I should also think that a comment in the code should be sufficient to
fulfill the moral obligations of referencing NIST. And, if it's a moral
obligation rather than a legal one, there's no requirement that it be
passed along in succeeding license.)
- Brooks