[brainCOLOR] Fwd: SfN Abstract Confirmation

[Arno Klein]

representatives of the brain color crowd will make another appearance!

cheers,
@rno

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: OASIS Abstract System <sup...@abstractsonline.com>
Date: Thu, May 13, 2010 at 4:58 PM
Subject: SfN Abstract Confirmation
To: ak2...@columbia.edu


Thank you, Arno Klein, for using OASIS, the Online Abstract Submission and Invitation System, to submit your abstract for Neuroscience 2010 which will be held November 13 - 17, 2010, in San Diego. Your abstract submission, Control Number 2010-S-17388-SfN, is Finalized and will be forwarded to the SfN Program Committee for review.

You may use the link below to access the abstract submission site at any time until the May 17, 2010, 5 pm EDT editing deadline to view or revise your abstract. After that point, information will only be available for viewing. You may also access the receipt for your submission and, once sessioning information is released in July, you may view your session assignment.  Find the link to the abstract submission site at any time at http://www.sfn.org/am2010/index.aspx?pagename=call_for_abstracts.

You will need the user id and password of the sponsor author to access the account.  If you have problems accessing the site, please email pro...@sfn.org.

Please contact sup...@abstractsonline.com for technical issues and pro...@sfn.org if you have any questions about your abstract and presenting at the meeting.

[Arno Klein]

i should mention that we have until the 17th to edit the abstract...

cheers,
@rno

[Arno Klein]

and i have already edited our submission! 

i have added my illustrious colleague, tito dal canton, who will aid and abet my efforts to integrate the proposed demonstration in the fully interactive online brain image viewer i'm building on our website (www.braincolor.org/openlabels/roygbiv).  all feedback about the updated abstract (attached) and about the online viewer, which is at an early rudimentary stage, would be greatly appreciated!

hey -- andy suggested i add some license to my roygbiv code.  i'm considering gnu l/gpl -- any thoughts on the matter?

cheers,
@rno

[Satrajit Ghosh]

hey arno,

hey -- andy suggested i add some license to my roygbiv code.  i'm considering gnu l/gpl -- any thoughts on the matter?

do you have an issue with BSD/MIT? if not, i think it should be BSD.

cheers,

satra

[Arno Klein]

satra --

"BSD" is a bit confusing!  it could mean quite a few things according to the gnu site (http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html#ModifiedBSD).  from what i've read, communicating that software has an X11 license is less confusing than a BSD license (see below).

i understand that many consider LGPL to be more flexible for integration into other codebases, but for a website, i don't see why the software shouldn't remain free in the fsf sense.  for website code, do you have an issue with GPL? 

cheers,
@rno

Original BSD license

This license is also sometimes called the “4-clause BSD license”.

This is a simple, permissive non-copyleft free software license with a serious flaw: the “obnoxious BSD advertising clause”. The flaw is not fatal; that is, it does not render the software non-free. But it does cause practical problems, including incompatibility with the GNU GPL.

We urge you not to use the original BSD license for software you write. If you want to use a simple, permissive non-copyleft free software license, it is much better to use the modified BSD license or the X11 license. However, there is no reason not to use programs that have been released under the original BSD license.

Modified BSD license

This license is sometimes referred to as the 3-clause BSD license.

This is the original BSD license, modified by removal of the advertising clause. It is a simple, permissive non-copyleft free software license, compatible with the GNU GPL.

If you want a simple, permissive non-copyleft free software license, the modified BSD license is a reasonable choice. However, it is risky to recommend use of “the BSD license”, because confusion could easily occur and lead to use of the flawed original BSD license. To avoid this risk, you can suggest the X11 license instead. The X11 license and the revised BSD license are more or less equivalent.

FreeBSD license

This is the original BSD license with the advertising clause and another clause removed. (It is also sometimes called the “2-clause BSD license”.) It is a simple, permissive non-copyleft free software license, compatible with the GNU GPL.

If you want a simple, permissive non-copyleft free software license, the FreeBSD license is a reasonable choice. However, please don't call it a “BSD” or “BSD-style” license, because that is likely to cause confusion which could lead to use of the flawed original BSD license.

[Bennett Landman]

Gpl is much more restrictive than lgpl... For anyone doing something a bit private or corperate, gpl code be exclusive. I use lgpl 2.1 for everything because it makes me totally open and allows others to opt-in when they use my stuff. 

-Bennett

Sent from my iPhone

[David Kennedy]

I'd love to capture this license discussion in NITRC; it must be a
conversation hat's been had a mnillion times over... and each time
different perspectives emerge.

There is a License open-discussion thread already started at NITRC:
http://www.nitrc.org/forum/message.php?msg_id=1406 I hate to make
work for people, so I could, with your permission, just paste this
discussion in. But that would lack the 'dialog' aspect. What's the
chance I could coearse you all into recreating it, starting with
Arno's original question: "hey -- i need add some license to my new
code. i'm considering gnu l/gpl -- any thoughts on the matter?" as a
new response thread to the above discussion at NITRC?

Just a thought...

DK

[Andrew J. Worth]

Your institution may also have something to say about which license you use.  It's not as if you own your own stuff :-(

Andy.

[David Kennedy]

Killjoy...

[Satrajit Ghosh]

hi arno,

i'll reply here and perhaps we can copy/replicate this on nitrc for community discussion (as dk suggests).

the current most used form of BSD is the two-clause license, which is very similar to the MIT license.

http://www.opensource.org/licenses/mit-license.html

to me it doesn't matter if it is a website or an application. the boundary is a lot fuzzier these days.

if you really want it to be free, then people should be free to do whatever with it except blame you for problems. and in my opinion the 2-clause BSD or the MIT license provides that.

if on the other hand you don't want somebody to run-off with your hard work then put a restrictive license.

for me personally, i don't have any attachment to any software i write. i just want it to improve and be used.

dk: this is why we need git-based email/mailing lists, so we can fork/merge/branch discussions!

cheers,

satra

[Bennett Landman]

Ask forgiveness rather than permission?

-Bennett

Sent from my iPhone

On May 14, 2010, at 10:43 AM, David Kennedy <dnke...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Killjoy...
>
> On Fri, May 14, 2010 at 11:38 AM, Andrew J. Worth
> <An...@neuromorphometrics.com> wrote:
>> Your institution may also have something to say about which license
>> you
>> use. It's not as if you own your own stuff :-(
>>
>> Andy.
>>
>> On 5/14/10 11:12 AM, Arno Klein wrote:
>>
>> satra --
>>
>> "BSD" is a bit confusing! it could mean quite a few things
>> according to the
>> gnu site (http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-

>> list.html#ModifiedBSD). from

[David Kennedy]

git-based email??? What's that?

DK

[Arno Klein]

thanks, satra -- i haven't visited the opensource.org site in a while. i just read through the site and i think the point of contention that has relevance to my choice of a license from here on out is in #1 and #9 of the 10 criteria constituting the "open source definition" (http://www.opensource.org/docs/osd):

1. Free Redistribution

The license shall not restrict any party from selling or giving away the software as a component of an aggregate software distribution containing programs from several different sources. The license shall not require a royalty or other fee for such sale.

9. License Must Not Restrict Other Software

The license must not place restrictions on other software that is distributed along with the licensed software. For example, the license must not insist that all other programs distributed on the same medium must be open-source software.

the LGPL and "MIT license" (doesn't MIT have a lot of licenses?) both satisfy these two criteria, yes?  does GPL? 

does anyone else have a concern regarding the ramifications of the criteria on the opensource.org website?  how do other members of the BCC: distribute their code?

cheers,
@rno

On Fri, May 14, 2010 at 11:54 AM, Satrajit Ghosh <sa...@mit.edu> wrote:

[Arno Klein]

i don't mean to get mired in a license quagmire, but people have been approaching me with questions about licensing their software as well, so please bear with my non-brain-labeling related questions for a bit longer.

on wikipedia's "MIT license" page:

According to the Free Software Foundation, the MIT License is more accurately called the X11 license, since MIT has used many licenses for software^[1] and the license was first drafted for the X Window System.^{[citation needed]}

Some software packages dual license their products under the MIT License, such as the JavaScript library jQuery, which is licensed under both the MIT License and the GNU General Public License.^[2]

the dual (MIT/GPL) licensing for jquery is interesting to me, because i'm using jquery for the web applications i'm presently building.

cheers,
@rno

[Bennett Landman]

I use lgpl because I find that it is nearly as clean as MIT/x11/bsd, but allows me to use a broader array of 3rd party java libraries.

In an ideal world, I'd only use x11/vsd/etc. To avoid confusion, I just release everything as lgpl. There is a (small) opportunity to relicense these tools under a tech transfer agreement to relax the lgpl use restrictions.

-Bennett

Sent from my iPhone

[Satrajit Ghosh]

hi arno,

1. Free Redistribution 

9. License Must Not Restrict Other Software

the LGPL and "MIT license" (doesn't MIT have a lot of licenses?) both satisfy these two criteria, yes?  does GPL? 

i think LGPL and MIT do, but GPL doesn't. it restricts any derived work to be GPL. GPL is the utopian license. in the ideal world everything would be GPL, but in our non-ideal circumstances i prefer BSD/MIT/LGPL. i don't completely understand the legal differences between LGPL and BSD/MIT. i like MIT and mod-BSD because they are short. not much legal mumbo-jumbo

Bennett: thanks for the info about the tech transfer.

cheers,

satra

[Bennett Landman]

Btw, I think the practical difference between lgpl and bsd/MIT is that with lgpl the code user has to share your code (original form) and not disallow an end user of a product from altering your library code.

-Bennett

Sent from my iPhone

[Arno Klein]

i added an excerpt of our exchange to the nitrc forum.

cheers,
@rno

[Arno Klein]

ah, andy, if they did, i would pack up and leave!

cheers,
@rno

On Fri, May 14, 2010 at 11:38 AM, Andrew J. Worth <An...@neuromorphometrics.com> wrote:

[Bennett Landman]

This is great. I am very sorry that I could not respond before the deadline. Digging muck out of my basement took much longer than I had hoped and expected. Fortunately, we are relatively well off compared to many others in our area as most things were bleachable and/or washable.  I should be actually back in the swing of things by today.

 

Many apologies.

Bennett

[David Shattuck]

I'm going to reply here as the question is for Bennett and I'm not sure he would be following the thread at NITRC actively -

---

Bennett -

I am curious about your choice of LGPL v2.1 rather than the more recent LGPL v3. Did you have a particular objection to LGPLv3?

thanks,

David

On Tue, May 18, 2010 at 8:27 AM, Bennett Landman <bennett...@vanderbilt.edu> wrote:

This is great. I am very sorry that I could not respond before the deadline. Digging muck out of my basement took much longer than I had hoped and expected. Fortunately, we are relatively well off compared to many others in our area as most things were bleachable and/or washable.  I should be actually back in the swing of things by today.

 

Many apologies.

Bennett

 

From: brain...@googlegroups.com [mailto:brain...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Arno Klein
Sent: Thursday, May 13, 2010 5:21 PM
To: brain...@googlegroups.com; David Shattuck; Tito Dal Canton
Cc: Ramin Parsey; Brian Avants
Subject: [brainCOLOR] Re: SfN Abstract Confirmation

[Bennett Landman]

I didn’t like requiring extra terms in v3 relating to tivoization (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tivoization). I prefer to be as close to Modified BSD/MIT as I can be. With LGPL 2.1, the user can use LGPL 2.1, LGPL 3, or any GPL license. If I could get sufficient libraries, I’d be solely with Modified BSD/MIT.