On 9/25/07, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > 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.
The Sage program overall is GPL3. The Sage library (new python/cython code) itself is still "GPLv2 or later", since it could be (in fact is) used with GMP-4.2.1 and GSL-1.9. > 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. It is true that we cannot include any GPLv2 only libraries if we include GMP-4.2.2. Singular is a library with that property, so no matter what happens we won't be including GMP-4.2.2 (or GSL-1.10) until Singular is relicensed. If for some reason the Singular people do decide not to relicense, then we would be in quite a pickle (and would probably be forced to fork GMP). > 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. Excellent, many thanks for posting that, but I hope nobody else looks at it, since unfortunately it seems to be seriously out of date. It's from January 2006 and the GPLv3 changed a lot since then. 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/ -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
