issue_comments

The PyNIO license has been rewritten as a standard 3-clause BSD license. Hopefully this satisfies all concerns.

http://www.pyngl.ucar.edu/Licenses/PyNIO_source_license.shtml

We will put it on the github page when it is made public.

On Thu, Oct 29, 2015 at 2:40 PM, Stephan Hoyer notifications@github.com wrote:

I agree that the license seems complaint with OSI guidelines, but nonetheless it isn't an OSI approved license. These FAQ entries seem relevant: http://opensource.org/faq#approved-licenses-only

— Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub https://github.com/xray/xray/pull/636#issuecomment-152312224.

OK I'll pass along that information.

On Thu, Oct 29, 2015 at 2:40 PM, Stephan Hoyer notifications@github.com wrote:

I agree that the license seems complaint with OSI guidelines, but nonetheless it isn't an OSI approved license. These FAQ entries seem relevant: http://opensource.org/faq#approved-licenses-only

— Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub https://github.com/xray/xray/pull/636#issuecomment-152312224.

I was just informed that "our lawyers looked it over and said we're OSI compliant."

Specifically "He compared the wording of both ours and the BSD one that you referenced, and said they are about 98% similar. The other 2%, which is something that's in the BSD that's not in ours, doesn't cause our license to be non-compliant."

Do you think this works? I do think we should fix the bad link to GRIBEX and point to the current ECMWF license. -dave

On Thu, Oct 29, 2015 at 2:16 PM, David Brown dbrown@ucar.edu wrote:

We are looking into our options on this. I know there were NCAR legal people involved in producing the current license. Hopefully given the current environment we will be to put it into a standard form that clearly meets the OSI requirement.

On Thu, Oct 29, 2015 at 11:14 AM, Filipe notifications@github.com wrote:

but it would be nice to be able to say that you use a standard license

[image: :+1:]

— Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub https://github.com/xray/xray/pull/636#issuecomment-152253168.

We are looking into our options on this. I know there were NCAR legal people involved in producing the current license. Hopefully given the current environment we will be to put it into a standard form that clearly meets the OSI requirement.

On Thu, Oct 29, 2015 at 11:14 AM, Filipe notifications@github.com wrote:

but it would be nice to be able to say that you use a standard license

[image: :+1:]

— Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub https://github.com/xray/xray/pull/636#issuecomment-152253168.

OK thanks for the info and the doc suggestions.

On Thu, Oct 29, 2015 at 10:37 AM, Stephan Hoyer notifications@github.com wrote:

Aside from the notice at the top "PLEASE READ THIS SOFTWARE LICENSE CAREFULLY" the license is direct copy of 3 clause BSD. It would be great to get this in the readme (once you're on github) to make this entirely clear.

The link for the license to GRIBX no longer works on the ECMWF website. But some googling turns up source files with the Apache 2.0 license attached, so I think we're in the clear (Apache 2.0 is BSD compatible). In any case, it should be in the PyNIO source code. For easier reference, it would be better to copy in the text of any referenced licenses in the PyNIO license itself, though.

— Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub https://github.com/xray/xray/pull/636#issuecomment-152240832.

Good question. I don't know. I do know it was intended to be as open as BSD, but I will need to research further what the actual situation is.

On Thu, Oct 29, 2015 at 10:03 AM, Filipe notifications@github.com wrote:

The license here: http://www.pyngl.ucar.edu/Licenses/PyNIO_source_license.shtml

@david-ian-brown https://github.com/david-ian-brown sorry for my ignorance but is that OSI approved http://opensource.org/licenses?

— Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub https://github.com/xray/xray/pull/636#issuecomment-152226596.

The license here:

http://www.pyngl.ucar.edu/Licenses/PyNIO_source_license.shtml

On Wed, Oct 28, 2015 at 3:51 PM, Stephan Hoyer notifications@github.com wrote:

@david-ian-brown https://github.com/david-ian-brown What license are you using for PyNIO? It looks like https://www.pyngl.ucar.edu/Licenses/PyNIO_source_license.shtml a standard 3 clause BSD? This would be helpful information to highlight on the new GitHub site -- I could only finding it by searching google, not by navigating on the website.

— Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub https://github.com/xray/xray/pull/636#issuecomment-152005733.

Hi Filipe, We will be making the pynio github site public soon, and I will update the PyPI information when that happens.

On Wed, Oct 28, 2015 at 3:51 AM, Filipe notifications@github.com wrote:

Maybe we could get ioos to also keep a pynio conda build up to date (cc @ocefpaf https://github.com/ocefpaf)

@david-ian-brown https://github.com/david-ian-brown is pynio open source now? If so I can add it to the ioos channel, but at PyPI it is still missing the source.

— Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub https://github.com/xray/xray/pull/636#issuecomment-151783551.

Great! Just FYI, the conda channel name will almost certainly change soon to something more representative of NCAR. I will let you know when that happens. Thanks for working with us on this.

Hi Stephan, So in this message: RuntimeError: module compiled against API version a but this version of numpy is 9 the "a" actually means 10 in hex I suppose.

I see that I need to do more thorough testing. My latest builds have all pulled in 1.10.x by default. I did put some NumPy specific versions up on the conda site before 1.10 was released. Maybe I need to make all the builds I do numpy (and python) version specific. I'll get a new 1.9 version up today.