My vote would be to change the sage license to "GPLv2 or later" and try to get the Singular developers to do likewise. Mainly because that is less work.
Does changing Sage to "v2 or later" require Sage to adopted future GPL changes? My interpretation is that it simply gives users the option to re-distribute it according to later versions of the GPL. It doesn't obligate Sage to adopt those future changes, does it? --jason > The *only* options I can think of right now are: > (1) Stick with GPLv2 and *fork* every FSF project Sage depends on: > * GMP > * GSL > * GNUtls (openssl replacement) > Anything else? > > (2) Change the Sage license to GPLv2 or later, and get clarification > about the same issue from the Singular developers. > > More details: > > (1) Make a stand and stick with GPLv2. This will mean in the long > run that we will have to FORK, never ever again ship updated > versions of, or remove dependence on every FSF-owned project. > This is definitely possible, since the projects are currently very > mature: > * GSL -- they just released GSL v1.10 under GPLv3 only (sage > currently includes GSL v1.9), > * GMP -- they just released GMP v4.2.2 under GPLv3 only (sage > currently includes on GMP v4.2.1), > It appears that a huge number of FSF/GNU projects are having > new releases under GPLv3 *only* right now (not GPLv2 or later). > I.e., FSF is very aggressively pushing their license in a technical sense. > > (2) We change the Sage license to GPLv2 or later, and change or > eliminate all components of Sage that are GPL v2 only. > As far as I can tell Singular is the only 3rd party component of > Sage that is in fact clearly GPL v2 only. Please correct me if I'm > wrong about that. > > ---- > > I think both options are viable, since I suspect that the only projects > Sage uses that will switch to GPLv3 only are the FSF projects -- most > projects will just stick with "GPLv2 or greater". Option (1) means more > work for us, though GSL is pretty much *done* -- it hasn't changed > much in years, and likewise GMP hasn't had anything interesting > happen release-wise in nearly 2 years. (The most interesting GMP work has > been outside the GMP project.) > > If you can think of a genuinely viable third option, or have strong > feelings about which of 1 or 2 is better, now is the time to speak > up. I have put off this GPLv3 license discussion repeatedly during > the last year when it came up. But now it can't be ignored anymore. > I greatly value everybody's feedback. > > -- William --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ To post to this group, send email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel URLs: http://sage.scipy.org/sage/ and http://modular.math.washington.edu/sage/ -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
