Contributed code, etc. (was [Maxima] Teaching differential equations with Maxima)

On Sat, 2003-02-22 at 17:43, C Y wrote:
> --- James Amundson <amundson@fnal.gov> wrote:
> > Instead of responding to various messages in this thread
> > individually,
> > I've created one large response to various issues raised in it:
> > 
> > 1) I am very happy to have people seek out existing
> > Macsyma/Maxima-related code. We have not yet fixed up the packages in
> > the share directory, however, so it does not yet make sense to seek
> > out new code for its own sake. Even so, seeking out code that someone
> 
> > has a particular interest in always makes sense.
> 
> Hmm.  I guess I sort of disagree, primarily because as people
> retire/technology ages it will get harder and harder to locate such
> code.  Plus, at least in my case, I don't know what is/was out there. 
> But, I see your point.  OK.

I guess I really wanted to say that I didn't want to spend time seeking
out code without good reason. You give a good reason. Please don't let
me deter you from your efforts.

 

> > 3) There was some discussion about what to do with contributed code
> > that is not necessarily up to the standards of the maxima 
> > distribution. It has been suggested that we put it somewhere other 
> > than "share." This has come up before. I created the share/contrib 
> > directory expressly for that purpose. I consider that problem solved.
> 
> OK, I'd forgotten about that.  So if we have a new unevaluated package
> we'd like to upload for storage/future consideration, it's OK to upload
> it there?  I've got a couple misc. packages I'd like to get into cvs so
> I'm not dependant on my backups to keep copies of them.  Some are darn
> hard to find, and if I lose my current information tracking them down
> again is nontrivial.

As long as we have the rights to redistribute them, I have no problem
with adding them to share/contrib. We should also add some documentation
about the unsupported nature of share/contrib.

If we (you) end up with a large amount of code, we should consider
putting it in a separate module.


> > 4) I am not clear on the legal status of the files that were
> > originally distributed as "DOE Macsyma." We need to determine whether
> 
> > there really are functions that are missing (as opposed to simply 
> > superseded), and, if so, exactly what they are. In the end, it may be
> 
> > simpler to re-implement them then to locate the old versions and 
> > determine their legal status. I don't know.
> 
> That'd be my guess.  Wouldn't the original authors be able to OK the
> release, as long as they weren't employees of Macsyma Inc. or some
> other company?
> 

It all depends on who owns the copyright. I think we have a fair shot at
DOE Macsyma files that predate 1982, as Richard suggested in a previous
message.

I haven't seen any pre-1982 Macsyma files that are not already in
Maxima. If they are out there, we should find them.


> For arbitrarily large definitions of "straightforward" ;-).  I agree
> though, that their ODE/PDE setup is very impressive and would be quite
> an asset to Maxima.  Maybe I'm making it more complex than it is - how
> would the implimentation work?  Work with our current ODE code or
> replace it totally?

I think it would be an alternative to the current ODE code. If it works
well, it should be the first choice, with the current ODE code coming up
as a second choice. If the new code proved to be totally superior, we
could just dump the old stuff.

-- 
James Amundson <amundson@fnal.gov>