[mesa-users] Bug: multiple versions of the MESA manifesto

[Bill Paxton]

Hi Sergio,

I'll have to consult my intellectual property lawyer before I answer.  ;D

But I can say for sure that I have no idea what has changed or why.

I do notice that the copy bundled with the download is titled "DRAFT MESA Manifesto"
while the one on sourceforge drops the "DRAFT".  I'm not a lawyer, but that
seems to indicate to me that the 2nd, non-DRAFT, version takes priority.

If we agree to take the sourceforge version as the "truth", does that cause 
problems for how you'd like to use mesa?   Regarding the 2 questions
you ask: Yes you are allowed to distribute MESA to your students,
your relatives, your neighbors, strangers on the street, anyone.
The 2nd question (about contingent release) goes away.
It was only in the DRAFT version -- there isn't a problem with
the final version, is there?

So this might be resolved by me simply updating the version that
is included with the download.  That makes sense.  It is all my fault!

Cheers,
Bill





On Nov 7, 2014, at 6:01 AM, Sergio Gelato wrote:

> 	"Good grief --- now we need a mesa intellectual property lawyer!"
> 		-- Bill Paxton, 2014-08-27
> 
> I'm not a lawyer, only someone who reads software licenses. I just noticed that
> there are at least two versions of the MESA manifesto. The one on the web site
> (at http://mesa.sourceforge.net/assets/mesa_manifesto.pdf), though undated,
> appears to be newer than the one in the mesa-r7184.zip bundle and at the head
> of the SVN trunk (dated April 29, 2010).
> 
> This creates a problem when interpreting copyright/license statements in the
> source files as added by r2307.
> 
> 1) Are we allowed to distribute MESA (e.g., to our students) or not?
> 2) Is user identification required ("release to a user is contingent
> upon [...]") or only requested [but optional]?
> 
> Please clarify. We'd like to use MESA but the wording of the bundled version
> of the manifesto is holding us back.
> 
> I find the changes in r2307 unfortunate in another respect: it sounds like
> you've added additional restrictions on top of the GNU LGPL. I suppose the
> copyright holder can do that, but the result is different from the LGPL
> (and may be incompatible with the GPL, which covers components like GYRE).
> If the intent is to modify the LGPL, I think one should give it a new
> name to avoid misunderstandings. If on the other hand the manifesto is
> intended to be morally but not legally binding, a wording that doesn't
> put it on equal footing with the license may be more appropriate.
> 
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> _______________________________________________
> mesa-users mailing list
> mesa-users at lists.sourceforge.net
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/mesa-users