I find it hard to believe there is an objection to using software and making modification without submitting patches.
On Wednesday, July 3, 2024 at 9:23:11 PM UTC-4 Waldek Hebisch wrote: > On Thu, Jul 04, 2024 at 08:21:35AM +0800, Qian Yun wrote: > > > > > > On 7/4/24 06:41, Waldek Hebisch wrote: > > > On Wed, Jul 03, 2024 at 11:18:05PM +0200, Ralf Hemmecke wrote: > > > > On 7/3/24 12:19, Qian Yun wrote: > > > > > Well, generally this feels a bit strange on multiple levels: > > > > > 1. they use such an old version > > > > > 2. they don't send bugs or upstream fixes to us > > > > > > > > Citing item 2 of our Licence.txt > > > > > > > > - Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the above copyright > > > > notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer in > > > > the documentation and/or other materials provided with the > > > > distribution. > > > > > > > > Honestly, just looking at their website, I do not even see FriCAS > mentioned > > > > at all in an easily accessible form. I find this inaccaptable. > > > > > > > > I do not have "the distribution", but if it comes without explicitly > > > > reproducing our Licence conditions, then we should certainly react. > > > > > > Assuming that ')copyright' works in their copy of FriCAS I think that > > > they are covered from legal side (IANAL). And assuming that they keep > > > normal FriCAS banner (identifying binary as FriCAS and giving info > about > > > ')copyright') that looks more or less OK. > > > > There were bugs with ')copyright' on windows in older releases. > > But their release only includes "algebra/" and "AXIOMSys.exe", > > no "etc/" or "share/", so may not include our copy of license. > > Or they could hide it in their lengthy EULA, or maybe not. > > To comply with the our license, they should have text of the > license _somewhere_. Recursive grep for 'Numerical ALgorithms Group' > should find it (unless it is really obfuscated in some way). > > > The banner is fully shown, unmodified. > > I guess that given name interested folks can use Google to find > FriCAS license. But I do not think that internet counts as > 'materials provided with the distribution'. > > > > Concerning bug fixes and patches, in relative terms we got infintely > > > more from Sage folks, but contribution from Sage folks is rather > > > small part of overall contributions to FriCAS. So I am not > > > surprised that there are no visible conftibution from Mathcad. > > > > > > > Sage doesn't develop new domains, MathCAD does. So they are more likely > > to hit by bugs. > > Not clear to me. Usig Spad code means that they may be affected > by bugs in the Spad compiler. OTOH for simple constructs Spad > compiler was quite reliable. And using Spad they are less > affected by interpreter bugs. > > > But as for the "82 new domains" I mentioned above, there is > > "EXPR.NRLIB", looks like it is modified for MathcadDisplayCategory. > > Other than that, all new domains, which means they really do not > > have an internal bug fix tree. > > We do not know. In principle they could patch implementations, > that would not change generated databases. If you want to > know you could try testcases for fixed bugs. > > Much depends on what they actually use. Some things, like basic > operations on polynomials with integer/rational coefficients are > quite stable, and I do not remember any related bugs. Other things > may be worked around in wrappers. > > One, likely possibility is that they developed what they need > around 2018 and keep using essentially the same thing. > > -- > Waldek Hebisch > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "FriCAS - computer algebra system" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/fricas-devel/86f980bf-1a61-48d1-a63f-52031d6a9f09n%40googlegroups.com.
