Re: pending interval-3.0.0 release

[Oliver Heimlich]

On 21.08.2017 17:32, Olaf Till wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 21, 2017 at 04:42:07PM +0200, Oliver Heimlich wrote:
>> <snip>
>> Also, I own the sole copyright holder for most of these files.  The only
>> exceptions being some files that have been originally licensed under the
>> Apache License 2.0, so I don't even have the obligation to provide any
>> original code form for them if I don't want.  I could just delete any
>> .itl files from Octave Forge and only put the itl.mat test data there.
>> <snip>
>> The .itl files are the preferred format for me and only me, because I
>> want to make sure that the very same test data can be used in any other
>> interval library as well, not necessarily in Octave.
>>
>> For everybody else (= licensee), the itl.mat file is perfectly fine to
>> be edited to be used with this package.
>> <snip>
>> I would rather remove any connection to the python scripts and .itl
>> files from Octave Forge and produce the test data somewhere else to
>> import it into the package repository when I get updates from other
>> interval researchers.
>> <snip>
>>> I don't know how you converted it manually. But I think what we are
>>> required to do in this case is to provide the original sources,
>>
>> Why should I have to redistribute the original work when I distribute a
>> derivative work?
>>
>>> necessary scripts (if they are not 'generally available'), and a
>>> script of yours which does what you had done manually.
>>
>> There is no script and never has been.  Why should I make a script?
>> This doesn't make sense.
> 
> (I left those parts of your post above which seem to be related to my
> next remarks.)
> 
> I think the argumentation with 'only your' preferred source and 'for
> the user it's sufficient...' is a bit adventurous. If we provide GPLed
> code, even if you have the sole copyright, we should provide the code
> in a way in which this license makes sense.
> 
> I believe that the data files are not sufficient as sources, and that
> some script to generate them should be provided (this in particular
> relates to your last two remarks above -- the script would need to
> process the original sources, I think).

I have made a derivative work and want to distribute it, which is
perfectly fine.  You want to be able to reproduce my work with a script.

It might actually be possible technically.  In one case I have to bundle
a lot of software, which I have no interest in (it could just as well be
downloaded from Github).  In the other case you request me to automate
what I have done afterwards.

We are not even talking about software.  It's static data.  We are
talking about the data format which you don't like.  A data format which
is perfect for an Octave user (.mat).

>> <snip> 
>> Yes it is complicated and at the beginning I haven't been sure about
>> what to do.  But after this discussion my opinion is pretty firm that
>> the current release arrangement is good and I don't see a need to change
>> anything regarding the test data files.
> 
> This means that we can't come to an agreement over this.
> 
> But since this is a controversy between two administrators, a solution
> could be that you publish the package despite my disapproving.

Yes it seems so, sorry for becoming a little bit emotional above...

I'd rather consider myself a package maintainer in this case and would
not want to take the role of an admin due to conflicting interests.

Maybe Julien can decide this issue unless no other community members
want to throw in further arguments.

Oliver