taskSavannah Administration - Tasks: task #14621, Submission of Graph Model Library

 
 

task #14621: Submission of Graph Model Library

Submitted by:  Brook Milligan <brook>
Submitted on:  Sun 03 Sep 2017 05:40:35 PM UTC  
 
Should Start On: Sun 03 Sep 2017 12:00:00 AM UTCShould be Finished on: Wed 13 Sep 2017 12:00:00 AM UTC
Category: Project ApprovalPriority: 5 - Normal
Status: In ProgressPrivacy: Public
Percent Complete: 0%Assigned to: Ineiev <ineiev>
Open/Closed: OpenEffort: 0.00

Add a New Comment(Rich Markup)
   

You are not logged in

Please log in, so followups can be emailed to you.

 

(Jump to the original submission Jump to the original submission)

Tue 03 Oct 2017 03:50:18 PM UTC, comment #11:

>>> One relevant consequence of this is that in US courts
>>> contributors to software only have standing for their own contribution in
>>> the absence of some procedure that clearly establishes the right for some
>>> person or entity to act on their behalf.
>>
>> Do you mean they are denied the right to hire a lawyer? This seems
>> extremely surprising. I believe it would violate the UDHR.
>> Could you support this with some references?
>
> Of course anyone can hire a lawyer to defend their rights. The point
> is that simply enlisting someone (e.g., a lawyer) to defend rights has
> no bearing on the rights that can be defended or the potential
> remedies that might be obtained.


I'm confused: are you saying that I can pay lawyers, but I can't
authorize them to act on my behalf in courts? This is what I would
describe as being effectively denied the right to hire a lawyer.
Note that I'm not discussing the set of rights the authors might
defend, I'm discussing "the absence of some procedure that clearly
establishes the right for some person or entity to act on their behalf."

>> Yes, I think the activity of "Us" releasing a proprietary version
>> of the library in binary-only form has some bearing on the rights
>> of people wishing to use derivative works, in particular,
>> that proprietary version of the library. Why doesn't it?


I still don't understand why this has no bearing on the rights of
people wishing to use proprietary derivative works.

> Nobody is obligated to use any particular work of any sort. Nor is
> anyone obligated to contribute to any particular project and may
> decline to do so for any reason whatsoever.


The GNU project doesn't support this line of reasoning, especially
the first part. We maintain that offering people proprietary software
is injustice by itself, nobody should have the power to do that.

> In this case, the released code is forever free; contributions to it
> are free; anything derived from it is free.


No, proprietary software derived from it by "Us" is not free.
How can it be free?

> Additionally, contributors retain ownership of copyright,
> retain moral rights, and have full economic rights regarding their
> contributions.


They lose the legal ability to disallow "Us" using their work
in proprietary products. This is an economic right, by the way.

Ineiev <ineiev>
Site AdministratorIn charge of this item.
Sat 30 Sep 2017 10:35:36 PM UTC, comment #10:

> > One relevant consequence of this is that in US courts
> > contributors to software only have standing for their own contribution in the
> > absence of some procedure that clearly establishes the right for some person
> > or entity to act on their behalf.
>
> Do you mean they are denied the right to hire a lawyer? This seems
> extremely surprising. I believe it would violate the UDHR.
> Could you support this with some references?


Of course anyone can hire a lawyer to defend their rights. The point
is that simply enlisting someone (e.g., a lawyer) to defend rights has
no bearing on the rights that can be defended or the potential
remedies that might be obtained. The goal I am trying to achieve is
simply to clarify what those rights are in as unambiguous a way as
possible given the diversity of legal contexts for interpreting
copyrights. Those contexts are much more complicated than simply the
"Berne Convention".

> > > > Nothing in the policy I have identified conflicts with anyone's
> > > > ability to maintain the free status of a GPLed program (or library in
> > > > this case). After all, it is released under the GPL and thus by design
> > > > cannot be made "unfree".
> > >
> > > If "Us" decide to release a proprietary version of the library,
> > > the library in that version will be nonfree. The only people
> > > who could prevent this are contributors---but if they sign that
> > > agreement, they can’t.
> >
> > This is fundamentally irrelevant to whether this is free software. Yes, all
> > sorts of hypothetical things can occur in the future. However, none of those
> > activities have any bearing on the rights of people wishing to use released
> > code, contributions to that released code, derivative works, or anything else.
>
> Yes, I think the activity of "Us" releasing a proprietary version
> of the library in binary-only form has some bearing on the rights
> of people wishing to use derivative works, in particular,
> that proprietary version of the library. Why doesn't it?


Nobody is obligated to use any particular work of any sort. Nor is
anyone obligated to contribute to any particular project and may
decline to do so for any reason whatsoever.

In this case, the released code is forever free; contributions to it
are free; anything derived from it is free. Therefore, it is free
software according to everything put forth by FSF and similar
entities. Additionally, contributors retain ownership of copyright,
retain moral rights, and have full economic rights regarding their
contributions.

As I said before:

> > This thread has strayed far from the assessment of whether or not
> > a submitted library meets the standards set out by Savannah and
> > should be accepted. You have published a set of requirements and a
> > set of guidelines that are intended to aid the review process. The
> > FSF has published abundant statements regarding what constitutes
> > free software and the rationale behind the value of it. I have
> > created a project in good faith that is appropriately licensed,
> > has appropriately licensed dependencies, and makes no restrictions
> > on ongoing development based upon either the releases or potential
> > contributions. There is nothing here that is in contradiction to
> > the guidelines that have been provided for Savannah projects.


If you feel otherwise, please identify specifically what requirements
or guidelines are not being met by this project.

Please also address the question at hand, which is whether or not this
project is to be accepted by Savannah.

Brook Milligan <brook>
Sun 24 Sep 2017 09:50:49 AM UTC, comment #9:

> > Yes, but in most countries copyright law complies with the Berne
> > Convention, and it says that the authors shall enjoy economic
> > rights unless they transfer their rights to someone else.
>
> It is true that the Berne Convention has 172 parties, and that that group
> likely includes all relevant jurisdictions for practical purposes. However, it
> is not at all the case that the Berne Conventions protects “economic
> rights”.


No, it has provisions for both economic and moral rights, if you mean that.

> Neither does US or German copyright law; I doubt any copyright law
> does. Specifically, the Berne Convention protects the following rights:
> translation, making adaptations and arrangements, public performance,
> recitation, broadcast, or other communication, reproduction, and use as basis
> for audiovisual work.


These are economic rights.

> The US law protects rights expressed slightly
> differently: reproduction, preparation of derivative works, distribution of
> copies, public performance, public display, and digital transmission.


These are economic rights, too.

> The
> details of how the requirements of the Berne Convention are met, i.e., the
> laws in place that actually protect these rights, can and do differ among
> jurisdictions. For example, in the US one can transfer copyright ownership,
> whereas in Germany that is not possible to do.


This would be relevant if Germany didn't provide any means
to effectively transfer economic rigths; however, it does.

> Who is able to seek remedies
> and what remedies are possible depend on the details of local law.


In the context of our discussion, it's relevant that the authors (until
they transfer certain parts of their rights) are able to seek remedies.
The Berne Convention requires this, therefore it should be the case
both in the US and in Germany as well as in Kyrgyzstan.

> Even
> worse, the identification of which local law prevails is not even clear for
> works (such as software under development worldwide) that are published widely
> and simultaneously.


I guess the courts are going to use their local law---in all cases compliant
with the Berne Convention.

> One relevant consequence of this is that in US courts
> contributors to software only have standing for their own contribution in the
> absence of some procedure that clearly establishes the right for some person
> or entity to act on their behalf.


Do you mean they are denied the right to hire a lawyer? This seems
extremely surprising. I believe it would violate the UDHR.
Could you support this with some references?

> > > Nothing in the policy I have identified conflicts with anyone's
> > > ability to maintain the free status of a GPLed program (or library in
> > > this case). After all, it is released under the GPL and thus by design
> > > cannot be made "unfree".
> >
> > If "Us" decide to release a proprietary version of the library,
> > the library in that version will be nonfree. The only people
> > who could prevent this are contributors---but if they sign that
> > agreement, they can’t.
>
> This is fundamentally irrelevant to whether this is free software. Yes, all
> sorts of hypothetical things can occur in the future. However, none of those
> activities have any bearing on the rights of people wishing to use released
> code, contributions to that released code, derivative works, or anything else.


Yes, I think the activity of "Us" releasing a proprietary version
of the library in binary-only form has some bearing on the rights
of people wishing to use derivative works, in particular,
that proprietary version of the library. Why doesn't it?

Ineiev <ineiev>
Site AdministratorIn charge of this item.
Fri 22 Sep 2017 03:50:35 AM UTC, comment #8:

> Follow-up Comment #7, task #14621 (project administration):
>
> > Please study what is known about the different legal situations in
> > different countries.
>
> I'm sorry, such a study would take too much time; could you point
> out the key differences relevant to our discussion?


See below.

> > There are in fact differences with respect to
> > what is allowable under copyright law, who has standing to seek
> > remedies, etc.
>
> Yes, but in most countries copyright law complies with the Berne
> Convention, and it says that the authors shall enjoy economic
> rights unless they transfer their rights to someone else.


It is true that the Berne Convention has 172 parties, and that that group likely includes all relevant jurisdictions for practical purposes. However, it is not at all the case that the Berne Conventions protects “economic rights”. Neither does US or German copyright law; I doubt any copyright law does. Specifically, the Berne Convention protects the following rights: translation, making adaptations and arrangements, public performance, recitation, broadcast, or other communication, reproduction, and use as basis for audiovisual work. The US law protects rights expressed slightly differently: reproduction, preparation of derivative works, distribution of copies, public performance, public display, and digital transmission. The details of how the requirements of the Berne Convention are met, i.e., the laws in place that actually protect these rights, can and do differ among jurisdictions. For example, in the US one can transfer copyright ownership, whereas in Germany that is not possible to do. Who is able to seek remedies and what remedies are possible depend on the details of local law. Even worse, the identification of which local law prevails is not even clear for works (such as software under development worldwide) that are published widely and simultaneously. One relevant consequence of this is that in US courts contributors to software only have standing for their own contribution in the absence of some procedure that clearly establishes the right for some person or entity to act on their behalf. The details of this are different in German courts. They are almost certainly different in other jurisdictions as well; after all, all the copyright laws for the 172 parties to the Berne Convention were crafted locally within the context of each legal system. The Berne Convention is not a legal system; it just states that certain rights must be protected and provides for certain minimum protections. Individual parties are responsible for implementing that. All of these aspects create a large degree of uncertainty for all copyrightable works, but especially ones that are collaboratively produced such as free software.

Again, none of this is about “economic rights”. Indeed, that is a red-herring with respect to a discussion of rights to use software freely.

> > Because it is released under the AGPL, the
> > software will always be free.
> >
> > Nothing in the policy I have identified conflicts with anyone's
> > ability to maintain the free status of a GPLed program (or library in
> > this case). After all, it is released under the GPL and thus by design
> > cannot be made "unfree".
>
> If "Us" decide to release a proprietary version of the library,
> the library in that version will be nonfree. The only people
> who could prevent this are contributors---but if they sign that
> agreement, they can’t.


This is fundamentally irrelevant to whether this is free software. Yes, all sorts of hypothetical things can occur in the future. However, none of those activities have any bearing on the rights of people wishing to use released code, contributions to that released code, derivative works, or anything else. Once released under the (A)GPL, those rights are guaranteed forever. That is the entire point of developing those licenses and the entire point of the many documents promulgated by the FSF. Thus, any development of a Savannah project, even with the contributor agreement that I am using, remains free software. These contributor agreements cannot change that. (Of course, more draconian agreements might, but they are not being used; all contributor agreements are not equal and all are not bad.) They just make it clear who has standing to protect the freedoms encapsulated within the license. Without that clarity, we are at the mercy of an ad hoc interpretation by a legal system that may not be supportive. Avoiding such a situation is actually strengthening the freedoms that users gain from free software.

> > As for contributor agreements.org, their stated aim is the
> > following: "The goal of contributoragreements.org is to develop the
> > legal and technical infrastructure that will enable open source
> > collaborative projects to receive,
>
> Savannah doesn't support open source
> <https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.html>, we support
> free software.
> These are different things
> <https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-open-overlap.html>.


Yes, the FSF has gone to great lengths to differentiate free from open source software. Those differences are abundantly clear. However, that does not bear on the point of whether or not a process that is supportive of open source software is also supportive of free software. The legal landscape applies to free software just as much as it applies to open source software. Means of assuring legal clarity that allows protection of one may well be beneficial to protecting the other. There is ample evidence from the analyses that I have cited and described in this thread to indicate that is the case. Furthermore, the approach I am using is not in conflict with the goal of free software as espoused so clearly by the FSF. All releases and contributions are forever protected; that is, in fact, the stated goal of the FSF as well as yourself.

> > the goal is to create an environment in which collaborative
> > projects can thrive
>
> People can collaborate in proprietary projects. Collaboration by
> itself is not our goal, our goal is freedom.


This thread has strayed far from the assessment of whether or not a submitted library meets the standards set out by Savannah and should be accepted. You have published a set of requirements and a set of guidelines that are intended to aid the review process. The FSF has published abundant statements regarding what constitutes free software and the rationale behind the value of it. I have created a project in good faith that is appropriately licensed, has appropriately licensed dependencies, and makes no restrictions on ongoing development based upon either the releases or potential contributions. There is nothing here that is in contradiction to the guidelines that have been provided for Savannah projects.

Please address the question at hand.

Thank you very much.

Brook Milligan <brook>
Thu 21 Sep 2017 11:15:34 AM UTC, comment #7:

> Please study what is known about the different legal situations in
> different countries.


I'm sorry, such a study would take too much time; could you point
out the key differences relevant to our discussion?

> There are in fact differences with respect to
> what is allowable under copyright law, who has standing to seek
> remedies, etc.


Yes, but in most countries copyright law complies with the Berne
Convention, and it says that the authors shall enjoy economic
rights unless they transfer their rights to someone else.

> Because it is released under the AGPL, the
> software will always be free.
>
> Nothing in the policy I have identified conflicts with anyone's
> ability to maintain the free status of a GPLed program (or library in
> this case). After all, it is released under the GPL and thus by design
> cannot be made "unfree".


If "Us" decide to release a proprietary version of the library,
the library in that version will be nonfree. The only people
who could prevent this are contributors---but if they sign that
agreement, they can't.

> As for contributor agreements.org, their stated aim is the
> following: "The goal of contributoragreements.org is to develop the
> legal and technical infrastructure that will enable open source
> collaborative projects to receive,


Savannah doesn't support open source, we support free software.
These are different things.

> the goal is to create an environment in which collaborative
> projects can thrive


People can collaborate in proprietary projects. Collaboration by
itself is not our goal, our goal is freedom.

Ineiev <ineiev>
Site AdministratorIn charge of this item.
Tue 19 Sep 2017 02:50:55 AM UTC, comment #6:

A new tarball is attached.

Please study what is known about the different legal situations in different countries. There are in fact differences with respect to what is allowable under copyright law, who has standing to seek remedies, etc. The policy I have identified with respect to contributions simply attempts to explicitly acknowledge these differences and remove any ambiguity. It has no effect on the freedom to use the software. Because it is released under the AGPL, the software will always be free.

Nothing in the policy I have identified conflicts with anyone's ability to maintain the free status of a GPLed program (or library in this case). After all, it is released under the GPL and thus by design cannot be made "unfree". In fact, after further thought, I have decided to release it under the AGPL, because as a library it might be the basis of a server product. Nobody can make any of this "unfree"; that is the point of releasing something under the (A)GPL after all.

As for contributor agreements.org, their stated aim is the following: "The goal of contributoragreements.org is to develop the legal and technical infrastructure that will enable open source collaborative projects to receive, use, and share in-kind contributions from participants while eliminating or minimizing the legal risk therefrom to the projects and those who depend on them." In short, the goal is to create an environment in which collaborative projects can thrive, and are simply looking at the legal ramifications of how to accomplish that.

Your goal of securing freedom for users of software is accomplished by ensuring that projects use the (A)GPL as a license, because that ensures that the software is always free. This project does that. At the same time, it strives to be unambiguous about the legal ramifications. These are not incompatible.

(file #41834)

Brook Milligan <brook>
Fri 08 Sep 2017 12:40:57 PM UTC, comment #5:

Could you attach the new tarball to this task?

I'm not sure why the US vs. Germany legal differences matter (and sincerely speaking I doubt that free software fits more laws of Germany than laws of the US where the movement started).

It is not important to have additional "remedies", it's important to have sufficient ones. Without contributor agreements, the community has a means to maintain the free status of a GPL'ed program; with your version of contributor agreement, "Us" may make this impossible at his discretion.

As a matter of fact, contributoragreements.org aims to minimize legal disputes; what we are interested in is to secure freedom.

Ineiev <ineiev>
Site AdministratorIn charge of this item.
Tue 05 Sep 2017 10:29:20 PM UTC, comment #4:

Thank you for the clarifications.

I believe I misunderstood your comment on the LaTeX-generated files. I now understand you to be referring to attributions in the rendered information, not in the PDF files per se. I have added appropriate attributions to the text of the files.

After additional experimentation, the generated documentation does not contain spurious copyright notices. (It did before.) Consequently, I have added copyright notices to the markdown files that lacked them.

I have added README files to the two directories containing binary files.

This addresses all the copyrights that should be in files.

I believe some of the confusion regarding intent was inadvertent wording. I do indeed intend this to be free software so I have changed wording in CONTRIBUTING to reflect that. However, I also feel that the US legal situation regarding FOSS is considerably more uncertain than Germany's. Further, there are remedies that gpl-violations.org has not sought in the past and probably cannot seek in the US given differences in legal systems. Those remedies, however, are possible to seek under the contributoragreements.org wording. Thus, I feel that I have adopted an approach that in fact protects all participants in this project and does in fact seek to foster development of free software. In any case, until there are any participants other than myself, this is moot. The software has great potential utility, but is highly technical mathematically and computationally; thus, whether it attracts interest remains an experiment.

Brook Milligan <brook>
Tue 05 Sep 2017 06:29:47 PM UTC, comment #3:

> The first two are LaTeX-generated files included for convenience and clarity.
> I do not believe they can have copyrights injected.


Why not? If any files have no license, they are unredistributable and
make the whole tarball unredistributable.

> The third is a one-liner that simply states the version number. Does this
> really need a copyright notice?


No, it isn't copyrightable.

> The two *.md files can have copyright notices, but that injects the notices
> into the Doxygen output in totally inappropriate places. I feel it is better
> to leave the notices out of these two files and preserve the clarity of the
> generated documentation, rather than slavishly follow a policy that all files
> should have copyright notices.


Then you could consider rearranging the documentation in a way that
allows including such notices in every file.

> The remainder are binary files that cannot be modified to include other
> elements without breaking the file formats.


When file format doesn't permit notices, they should be written in a README
file in the same directory.

> Overall, given the prominence of COPYING (following GNU guidelines) and the
> presence of notices in the remaining files (over 700), I feel that the copying
> terms are clearly spelled out.


GNU guidelines say that every file in the tarball should have valid notices.

> The point of this comment is unclear,


Agreed.

> but it would seem to imply that this software is not free software.


This is not quite correct: the point is not whether this software
free or not, the point is whether its developers consider it free or
open source.

If a package is going to be hosted on Savannah, its developers should
call it free software.

> There are many points of view regarding the nature of contributions to
> software projects, even within the free software community. It seems to me
> that the freest approach is to maintain the rights of users of the software,
> to maintain the rights of contributors with respect to their contributions,
> and to maintain the rights of the project to advance and protect the project
> as best as possible.


The GNU project is not about freedom of contributors or developers, it's
about freedom of users; in particular, it doesn't support the "right"
of developers to make their software (to say nothing of third party
contributions) proprietary.

Your agreement maintains such power for "Us", which is not desirable.

> It also allows &quot;Us&quot; to defend the project
> against infringement, something we would not have otherwise.


Yes, "Us" would.

> Further, while individual contributors might have that
> right under some alternative approaches, it is not at all likely that they
> would prevail.


Do you mean GnuPG license is not enforceable? I'd disagree.

> Thus, the clauses in the GPL3 that stipulate various policies
> on derived works are likely to be ineffective without an interested entity.


Sure thing. The more interested entities the better chance
that at least one of them will be Harald Welte.

Thank you!

Ineiev <ineiev>
Site AdministratorIn charge of this item.
Tue 05 Sep 2017 12:57:16 AM UTC, comment #2:

The comments by Ineiev seem to make the following three points:

- Some files lack in-file copyright notices.
- Savannah supports free software (perhaps this is not).
- A personal judgement is given regarding the contributor agreement.

Below I address each in turn.

In-file copyrights
=============

As far as I can tell, the following is the entire list of files that lack copyright notices:

CLA-entity.pdf
CLA-individual.pdf
VERSION
docs/building_models.md
docs/class_hierarchy.md
tests/gdal/data/test_raster.tif
tests/gdal/data/tl_2010_35_county10/tl_2010_35_county10.dbf
tests/gdal/data/tl_2010_35_county10/tl_2010_35_county10.prj
tests/gdal/data/tl_2010_35_county10/tl_2010_35_county10.shp
tests/gdal/data/tl_2010_35_county10/tl_2010_35_county10.shx

The first two are LaTeX-generated files included for convenience and clarity. I do not believe they can have copyrights injected.

The third is a one-liner that simply states the version number. Does this really need a copyright notice?

The two *.md files can have copyright notices, but that injects the notices into the Doxygen output in totally inappropriate places. I feel it is better to leave the notices out of these two files and preserve the clarity of the generated documentation, rather than slavishly follow a policy that all files should have copyright notices.

The remainder are binary files that cannot be modified to include other elements without breaking the file formats.

Overall, given the prominence of COPYING (following GNU guidelines) and the presence of notices in the remaining files (over 700), I feel that the copying terms are clearly spelled out.

Free software
==========

The point of this comment is unclear, but it would seem to imply that this software is not free software. However, it is distributed under the GPL3, which by definition of the Free Software Foundation makes it free software. Every guideline that FSF uses to define free software is concerned with the rights of people to use the software in various ways. The entire point of the GPL3, as described extensively by the Free Software Foundation (e.g., https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.en.html) is to protect those rights for the users of software. By virtue of being distributed under the GPL3, this software cannot be more free according to these definitions.

Contributions
==========

There are many points of view regarding the nature of contributions to software projects, even within the free software community. It seems to me that the freest approach is to maintain the rights of users of the software, to maintain the rights of contributors with respect to their contributions, and to maintain the rights of the project to advance and protect the project as best as possible. Anything else imposes restrictions.

The distribution of this software under the GPL3 permanently protects the rights of users, and therefore makes this free software by definition. The contributor agreement is intended to maintain the other rights.

I feel that the best strategy with respect to contributions for a nascent project is entirely unclear, because there is much conflicting evidence and much uncertainty. However, ambiguity is likely not among the useful strategies. Putting aside philosophical feelings, which cannot be evaluated substantively, the analysis I refer to suggests that the strategy taken here allows contributors to retain all rights to contributions. It also allows &quot;Us&quot; to defend the project against infringement, something we would not have otherwise. Further, while individual contributors might have that right under some alternative approaches, it is not at all likely that they would prevail. Thus, the clauses in the GPL3 that stipulate various policies on derived works are likely to be ineffective without an interested entity. What good are those clauses in protecting users' rights if they cannot be protected?

Taken together, these points suggest that the approach taken here is in fact the most compatible with broad goals of free software: protecting users, protecting contributors, and protecting projects.

This project is unambiguously free software by virtue of releasing code under the GPL3. Whether or not it will foster a community of developers depends on the technical details the library seeks to address and the willingness of contributors to participate. As a new library, it remains to be seen how this experiment will play out. There is, however, no single correct answer to the question, what is likely to promote the most robust development community? Further, that is not a defining property of free software, nor could it be because it is entirely speculative.

Brook Milligan <brook>
Mon 04 Sep 2017 04:28:23 PM UTC, comment #1:

Thank you for submitting your package!

All files should have valid copyright and license
notices; files like docs/class_hierarchy.md and CLA-entity.pdf
have none.

Then, Savannah doesn't support open source, we provide hosting
facilities for free software.

And sincerely speaking, it seems to me that your contribution
agreement assigns too much power to "Us": it enables "Us"
make the package proprietary; in my opinion a certificate of origin
like the one used by GnuPG would be more adequate.

Ineiev <ineiev>
Site AdministratorIn charge of this item.
Sun 03 Sep 2017 05:40:35 PM UTC, original submission:

A new project has been registered at Savannah
This project account will remain inactive until a site admin approves
or discards the registration.

Registration Administration

While this item will be useful to track the registration process,
approving or discarding the registration must be done using the specific Group Administration page, accessible only to site administrators,
effectively logged as site administrators (superuser):

Registration Details

  • Name: Graph Model Library
  • System Name: graph-model
  • Type: non-GNU software and documentation
  • License: GNU General Public License v2 or later (This project is currently released under the GNU GPL v3. It also

includes explicit information of interest to potential contributors to
avoid any ambiguities regarding the consequences of submitting
contributions. In short, a contributor retains copyright and grants
an exclusive license to the project. In return, the contributor
obtains a non-exclusive, all-encompassing license to the contribution.
This approach is based upon an analysis undertaken by contributoragreements.org and is the best balance between contributor rights and
project needs. See the rationale outlined in CONTRIBUTING.
)


Description:

The Graph Model Library is a generic C++ library for computing on
probabilistic graph models, which are powerful tools for describing
and analyzing data. As a result, they have found (often implicit)
application in a vast array of fields, including machine learning,
natural language processing, image recognition, population genetics,
genomics, and biology. However, software useable for computing on
probabilistic graph models often suffers from serious limitations.
The most crucial of these is that the software is often very
specialized and not designed for general use; consequently, it is
inaccessible to most practicing scientists. The exceptions to this
suffer from other limitations, however; for example, the set of
available data types is often highly constrained, the range of
possible graph structures is limited, and the execution environment
restricts the scope of problems that can be represented.

The Graph Model Library seeks to overcome all of these limitations so
that probabilistic graph models may be used easily for any appropriate
problem. Some features that underly this power are the following:

- Implementation of a domain-specific language encoded within C++ to
support arbitrary probabilistic graph models,

- Widespread use of templates to enable generic programming supporting
both user-defined and library-defined data types, and

- Leveraging the full capacity of C++ to support high performance
computing at any scale.

The goal of this project is to expand the applicability of
probabilistic graph models and make computing with them widespread
within the scientific community.

Other Software Required:

Boost C++ Libraries
-------------------

http://www.boost.org

Boost Software License - Version 1.0 - August 17th, 2003

Permission is hereby granted, free of charge, to any person or organization
obtaining a copy of the software and accompanying documentation covered by
this license (the "Software") to use, reproduce, display, distribute,
execute, and transmit the Software, and to prepare derivative works of the
Software, and to permit third-parties to whom the Software is furnished to
do so, all subject to the following:

The copyright notices in the Software and this entire statement, including
the above license grant, this restriction and the following disclaimer,
must be included in all copies of the Software, in whole or in part, and
all derivative works of the Software, unless such copies or derivative
works are solely in the form of machine-executable object code generated by
a source language processor.

THE SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED "AS IS", WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR
IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO THE WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY,
FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE, TITLE AND NON-INFRINGEMENT. IN NO EVENT
SHALL THE COPYRIGHT HOLDERS OR ANYONE DISTRIBUTING THE SOFTWARE BE LIABLE
FOR ANY DAMAGES OR OTHER LIABILITY, WHETHER IN CONTRACT, TORT OR OTHERWISE,
ARISING FROM, OUT OF OR IN CONNECTION WITH THE SOFTWARE OR THE USE OR OTHER
DEALINGS IN THE SOFTWARE.

Asynchronous
------------

https://htmlpreview.github.io/?https://github.com/henry-ch/asynchronous/blob/master/libs/asynchronous/doc/asynchronous.html#distributing

This is a C++ library for asynchronous programming. It is proposed
for inclusion in Boost, but has not yet been reviewed. It is
distributed under the Boost Software License.

MP11


http://www.boost.org/doc/libs/develop/libs/mp11/doc/html/mp11.html

This is a C++ metaprogramming library. It was recently approved for
inclusion within Boost, and is distributed under the Boost Software
License.

PolyCollection
--------------

http://rawgit.com/joaquintides/poly_collection/website/doc/html/index.html

This is a C++ library for collections of polymorphic objects. It was
recently approved for inclusion within Boost, and is distributed under
the Boost Software License.

Yap
---

https://tzlaine.github.io/yap/doc/html/index.html

This is a C++ library for expression templates. It is proposed for
inclusion within Boost, but has not yet been reviewed. It is
distributed under the Boost Software License.

GDAL -- Geospatial Data Abstraction Library
-------------------------------------------

http://www.gdal.org

Permission is hereby granted, free of charge, to any person obtaining a
copy of this software and associated documentation files (the "Software"),
to deal in the Software without restriction, including without limitation
the rights to use, copy, modify, merge, publish, distribute, sublicense,
and/or sell copies of the Software, and to permit persons to whom the
Software is furnished to do so, subject to the following conditions:

The above copyright notice and this permission notice shall be included
in all copies or substantial portions of the Software.

THE SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED "AS IS", WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS
OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO THE WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY,
FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE AND NONINFRINGEMENT. IN NO EVENT SHALL
THE AUTHORS OR COPYRIGHT HOLDERS BE LIABLE FOR ANY CLAIM, DAMAGES OR OTHER
LIABILITY, WHETHER IN AN ACTION OF CONTRACT, TORT OR OTHERWISE, ARISING
FROM, OUT OF OR IN CONNECTION WITH THE SOFTWARE OR THE USE OR OTHER
DEALINGS IN THE SOFTWARE.

Tarball URL:

https://savannah.gnu.org/submissions_uploads/graph_model-0.1.0.tgz

Brook Milligan <brook>

 

(Note: upload size limit is set to 16384 kB, after insertion of the required escape characters.)

Attach File(s):
   
   
Comment:
   

Attached Files
file #41834:  graph-model-0.1.2.tgz added by brook (999KiB - application/x-gzip)

 

Depends on the following items: None found

Items that depend on this one: None found

 

Carbon-Copy List
  • -unavailable- added by ineiev (Posted a comment)
  • -unavailable- added by brook (Submitted the item)
  •  

    Do you think this task is very important?
    If so, you can click here to add your encouragement to it.
    This task has 0 encouragements so far.

    Only logged-in users can vote.

     

    Please enter the title of George Orwell's famous dystopian book (it's a date):

     

     

    Follow 3 latest changes.

    Date Changed By Updated Field Previous Value => Replaced By
    Tue 19 Sep 2017 02:50:55 AM UTCbrookAttached File-=>Added graph-model-0.1.2.tgz, #41834
    Mon 04 Sep 2017 04:28:23 PM UTCineievStatusNone=>In Progress
      Assigned toNone=>ineiev

    Back to the top


    Powered by Savane 3.1-cleanup1