> Yes, that was my reading to. However, having read through all 20 pages > (!!) of their license file, it seems clear that their intentions are > good, and that their main concern is that the source code is kept open > and free, though they are clumsy in the execution of that. CCLRC is a I have seen some opposition from scientists to free software, because * they are not opposed to commercial use, but separate commercial use and free use: when there is profit done they must be some money back, and this goes against unrestricted use clause of free software. * they are opposed to forks and free redistribution, they want to be acknowledged for the work and also keep control on it. That also goes against free software. Those 2 points are in the CCLRC licence, so maybe it won't be so easy. And in my opinion these are valid points - although the first point is in fact achieved with the GPL in most cases, at least for scientific software: no profit are made with the code itself. It seems to me that the scientists are more ready to abandon the 2 points above today because free software seems very succesfull and they want to be part of it, but there are still almost free software packages that are not free (I can think of scilab, for example). -- Pat -- fedora-extras-list mailing list fedora-extras-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-extras-list
