[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: 2.9.10?
From: |
David Bateman |
Subject: |
Re: 2.9.10? |
Date: |
Thu, 16 Nov 2006 21:40:10 +0100 |
User-agent: |
Thunderbird 1.5.0.7 (X11/20060921) |
Quentin Spencer wrote:
> David Bateman wrote:
>> John W. Eaton wrote:
>>
>>> Are there any things that absolutely must be fixed or included before
>>> I make another snapshot?
>>>
>>> I know about eigs, but we are waiting for a clarification on the
>>> ARPACK license before including that.
>>>
>>> jwe
>>>
>>>
>>
>> The arpack mail address at rice university appears to be dead, and so I
>> suggested in Quentin in an offline mail that he should contact Chao Yang
>> (CYang <AT> lbl <DOT> gov) one of the authors of ARPACK directly for the
>> clarification. Perhaps Quentin has heard something...
>>
>
> I only got around to re-sending the license clarification request today.
> The first author listed on the original license document is D. Sorenson,
> who is still at Rice University (according to their web site), so I
> tried him first (David and John, you should have been CCd on the mail).
>
> Quentin
>
>
I'd be tempted to send it to all of the authors for whom you can find an
address... That way they can all be aware of the request..
D.
- 2.9.10?, John W. Eaton, 2006/11/16
- Re: 2.9.10?, Quentin Spencer, 2006/11/16
- Re: 2.9.10?, David Bateman, 2006/11/16
- Re: 2.9.10?, Quentin Spencer, 2006/11/16
- Re: 2.9.10?,
David Bateman <=
- Re: 2.9.10?, Tom Holroyd (NIH/NIMH) [E], 2006/11/16
- Re: 2.9.10?, John W. Eaton, 2006/11/16
- Re: 2.9.10?, Tom Holroyd (NIH/NIMH) [E], 2006/11/16
- Re: 2.9.10?, John W. Eaton, 2006/11/16
- Re: 2.9.10?, John W. Eaton, 2006/11/16