Talk:GNU Data Language

GPLv2 vs CC-BY-SA-3.0 compatibility
Someone recently copy/pasted from the GDL website front page to this article. The GDL website front page says that the content is part of the GDL project and thus covered by the GPL, without stating which version, or if it's "version X or later". GDL-0.9.1 has a file COPYING which states GPLv2.

If someone wants to use text from the GDL website, then please give some links explaining why you think that the GPLv2 material is re-publishable under CC-BY-SA-3.0. Alternatively, if you are in contact with the developers or wish to post on the GDL development site (@sourceforge), then chances are they would be happy to dual-license (GPLv2 + CC-BY-SA-3.0) the website front page - but they need to state this in an easily verifiable way on the website. Boud (talk) 16:29, 31 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Copy/paste from my Boud (talk) 18:31, 10 August 2011 (UTC) user page:

Hello,

Regarding the removal of text from the GDL page: I'm the author of the intro text on the GDL website, and I've put in myself on Wikipedia - is it enough to "sort out licensing on the talk page"?

Best, Sylwester — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.87.7.106 (talk) 12:22, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

GDL home page CC-BY-SA
A snapshot of the http://gnudatalanguage.sourceforge.net/ home page is archived at http://www.webcitation.org/60q5GchPi and includes at the bottom, "Website content is developed by The GDL Team and is released under the CC BY-SA license (i.e. Wikipedia compatible)".

IMHO this should remove any copyright issues with similarities between the text there and the text here. :) This avoids needing any evidence of whether or not Sylwester (comment above) is really the author or not: it's clear that whoever the author(s) of the webpage is (are), s/he/they declare the copy of the content published on the date of the snapshot to be CC-BY-SA.

(Comment: this might complicate licensing for the GDL packet itself; IMHO dual licensing might be simpler. However, i'm not an expert on this. See Multi-licensing for internal Wikipedia discussion on multi-licensing issues. In any case, that's an issue for GDL, not for the Wikipedia.)

i've used the above as a reference for a piece of info that needed sourcing - compatibility of 0.9.1 with IDL 7.1 (and some 8.0) - and a phrase that is more like an opinion than a fact and is almost word-for-word identical with the CC-BY-SA source - the intended audience. The opinion seems quite credible to me.

Sylwester - IMHO that's sorted out now. :)

Boud (talk) 18:52, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Notability
In the, there are two refereed journal articles (from the mainstream astronomy journal Astronomy and Astrophysics) that establish current usage of GDL in astronomy (2009, 2010) (ref 5), and two brief web-based software journalism articles (by the Mac community) that refer to GDL usage (refs 1, 2). (The astro refs are arXiv refs that should be filled in by a robot within a few days of 19:24, 10 August 2011 (UTC).)

It would be cool to get some refs from the geosciences and medical imaging communities. Does anyone have any objections to removing the notability tag once we have geosciences and medical imaging community references (or a few others outside of astronomy) that state clearly that the authors used GDL for their main calculations? Boud (talk) 19:24, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

References to Related Languages
I propose the sentence, "The GNU Data Language (GDL) is a free alternative to IDL (Interactive Data Language)" be changed to "The GNU Data Language (GDL) is a free alternative to IDL (Interactive Data Language; itself related to PV-WAVE [link])." The google group is idl-pvwave, and so someone out there thinks they are closely related. If you want to note this somewhere else in the article, that's OK with me too, but somewhere it should be communicated that this is a family of related languages, something which I wish I knew more about, and might help more people have more code and tool togetherness in the future. 192.184.128.46 (talk) 20:06, 27 January 2021 (UTC)