Resolve "What is the status of OPAL Map?"

Closes #464 (closed)

changed milestone to %OPAL 2.4.0

added Add/modify Doc Remarks labels

added 1 commit

• ffe6984c - remove implementation of unfinished methods; apply some coding style; add note to header

Compare with previous version

unmarked as a Work In Progress

mentioned in issue #464 (closed)

According the coding style a brief description of the content is the first section in the header.

changed this line in version 2 of the diff

I have added a brief description. I have kept the main class documentation here as specified in 3.2

A general question: do we want author names in headers? This made sense in RCS/CVS times, but nowadays?

This never made much sense to me, also with CVS you could find out who wrote it, but many people seem to like it. I have merely copied this part from the implementation to the header.

so lets remove this lines.

Then we need to remove it everywhere, not just here. There are more than 1000 lines in the source that have author:. The discussion is good to have, but doesn't belong here. Perhaps something to discuss for the retreat?

Lets keep it simple and fix this kind of stuff in files we are editing anyway.

I think it is much cleaner to fix this all at once, but yes also along the way. That is why I also fix the coding style. However, this particular thing needs to be decided by the whole collaboration. Many authors do this on purpose.

Maybe @ext-rogers_c can remind us why he puts a specific STFC copyright with author name(s) in his files? I more or less remember, but he can definitely phrase it more precisely.

added 1 commit

• 61b77317 - more coding style; add brief description to top of header

Compare with previous version

added 1 commit

• b442427b - remove not needed 0+ statements

Compare with previous version

added 1 commit

• 3e43f380 - add brief description to source file

Compare with previous version

In case students write the code they need to indicate that they have written it, from that point of view it makes sense. Maybe some collaborators want to add their "flag" to a part of the code. I would not remove authors flags nor make author flags a requirement. So it is up to the individual.

@adelmann ok, this makes sense. But then the title of their work should also be added to the brief description in the header. Something like

// Full name of author // Master|PhD thesis // Title of work

@gsell This information is added here: https://gitlab.psi.ch/OPAL/src/wikis/OPALPresentations

approved this merge request

@snuverink_j I was brought up to always put owner of the copyright and the license in every file. E.g. recommendation from GPL

https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-howto.html

Give each file the proper copyright notices

Put a license notice in each file.

(edited to correct malformat of quote grumble, markup, grumble)

When I joined the project, I was not aware of there being any specific license beyond PSI "ownership" - so I started using BSD license for my contributions, because I thought it was compatible with "open" and PSI "ownership" i.e. if PSI wants to start selling OPAL due to some PHB logic they still can; but I can't lose access to my contributions.

I don't particularly care beyond:- I don't want to lose access to code I wrote if some PHB takes interest in things; I don't want to cause license problems down the road for others who want to use the code (e.g. not knowing who owns copyright to each file, and then trying to change the license, can be difficult/impossible).

@ext-rogers_c Is the author or the university/institute/lab the holder of the copyright? Like (for H5hut):

Copyright (c) 2006-2016, The Regents of the University of California,
  through Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (subject to receipt of any
  required approvals from the U.S. Dept. of Energy) and the Paul Scherrer
  Institut (Switzerland).  All rights reserved.

Since I'm working for PSI, I assume PSI holds the copyright.

@gsell I don't believe STFC holds copyright. There was no provision in the STFC Terms of Employment for intellectual property last time I looked (admittedly, a while back).

@snuverink_j @ext-rogers_c Ok, maybe we have to change/extend the file header for OPAL source files according the recommendations in https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-howto.html. What do you think about the following proposal:

//
// Brief description
//
// Copyright (c) YYYY, Notice mentioning University, Institute, Lab or Author
//
// Optional: related work, e.g. title of PhD or Master thesis
//
// This file is part of OPAL.
//
// OPAL is free software: you can redistribute it and/or modify
// it under the terms of the GNU General Public License as published by
// the Free Software Foundation, either version 3 of the License, or
// (at your option) any later version.
//
// You should have received a copy of the GNU General Public License
// along with OPAL.  If not, see <https://www.gnu.org/licenses/>.
//

For PSI employees the copyright notice would be:

// Copyright (c) YYYY1[, YYYY2...], Paul Scherrer Institut, Villigen PSI, Switzerland
// All rights reserved.

For a PhD or Master student something like:

// Copyright (c) YYYY1[, YYYY2...], Firstname Lastname, University
// All rights reserved

My proposal for the header of the file MapAnalyser.h would be something like:

//
// Class: MapAnalyser
//   Organizes the function for a linear map analysis from
//   ThickTracker.
//   Transfer map -> tunes, symplecticity and stability
//   Sigma Matrix -> (not projected) beam emittance
//
// This class is in an unfinished state.
// For some dicussion see https://gitlab.psi.ch/OPAL/src/issues/464
// Some cleanup was done in https://gitlab.psi.ch/OPAL/src/merge_requests/294
//
// Copyright (c) 2017, Philippe Ganz, ETH Zürich
// All rights reserved
//
// Implemented as part of the Master thesis
// "s-based maps from TPS & Lie-Series applied to Proton-Therapy Gantries"
//
// This file is part of OPAL.
//
// OPAL is free software: you can redistribute it and/or modify
// it under the terms of the GNU General Public License as published by
// the Free Software Foundation, either version 3 of the License, or
// (at your option) any later version.
//
// You should have received a copy of the GNU General Public License
// along with OPAL.  If not, see <https://www.gnu.org/licenses/>.
//

approved this merge request