This is not an option. From GPL2: 2. ... b) You must cause any work that you distribute or publish, that in whole or in part contains or is derived from the Program or any part thereof, to be licensed as a whole at no charge to all third parties under the terms of this License.
>From GPL3: These requirements apply to the modified work as a whole. If identifiable sections of that work, added by you, are not derived from the Program, and can be reasonably considered independent and separate works in themselves, then this License, and its terms, do not apply to those sections when you distribute them as separate works for use not in combination with the Program. But when you distribute the same sections for use in combination with covered works, no matter in what form such combination occurs, the whole of the combination must be licensed under this License, whose permissions for other licensees extend to the entire whole, and thus to every part of the whole. Your sections may carry other terms as part of this combination in limited ways, described in section 7. Hence, if Sage cannot function without GPL3 software, it *must* be licensed under GPL3, and no other license. Therefore, "GPL2 or later" truly means "GPL3" the instant that we include gmp4.2.2, no matter what we might tell ourselves. Similarly, if there is a library which is GPL2 only, we cannot include it once we've included gmp4.2.2. This is utterly ridiculous, but apparently a fact of life. <rant>With all of RMS's talk about "subjugation", and Microsoft "forcing" people into using their software, he seems pretty happy to "force" people into using the new license, and cause others to turn around and pressure their friends to do the same -- does this remind anybody else of the early days of communism in China? Oh, wait. No. I almost forgot: people aren't getting *killed* for doing or not doing these things -- what's "subjugation" mean again?</rant> Anyway. Sorry for that. I found this link useful: http://www.groklaw.net/articlebasic.php?story=20060118155841115 and I got the above quotes from row #5. On Tue, 25 Sep 2007, Robert Bradshaw wrote: > > At this point it looks like the only reasonable option is to > (begrudgingly) move to "GPLv2 or above" but there is another option > that I haven't seen come up in discussion yet, and that is releasing > SAGE under an amended GPLv2 that explicitly allows linking against > LGPLv3+ libraries (or some other compatibility clause). This would > free us from being at the mercy of whatever the FSF decides is a good > idea 10 years from now, or even what they decided this last year. > > In doing this, however, we would loose what to me is the biggest > advantage of the GPL over all the other copyleft Open Source licenses > out there, namely that one merely has to say "this code is GPL" and > everyone has an idea (of varying accuracy) what you're talking about. > Also, it would only cover LGPL code, not anything GPL. > > I am not convinced that this is the best idea, I just wanted to throw > it out there. > > - Robert > > > On Sep 23, 2007, at 11:34 AM, William Stein wrote: > >> >> On 9/23/07, Mike Hansen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>> It seems odd that closed source software could use GMP under the >>> LGPLv3, but that a GPLv2 project could not. How tightly >>> integrated is >>> the GMP stuff? Aren't we pretty much just using it as a library? >> >> We are just using it as a library. The problem isn't LGPLv3, >> but GPLv2 itself! But please see >> http://gplv3.fsf.org/dd3-faq >> where it is made crystal clear that in fact a GPLv2 project can't >> even use an LGPLv3 library in library-only mode. >> >> There is a discussion here: >> http://lwn.net/Articles/241065/ >> >> In short, Magma and Maple can use GMP under LGPLv3, but >> Sage can't, because Sage is GPLv2, and the GPLv2 specifically >> disallows linking against libraries that are more restrictive >> (except things like the C library). >> >> -- 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/ -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
