On Nov 19, 2007 9:20 AM, somebody defending Maple wrote: > William, > > There are two ways to see the source code in Maple: > eval(procname); > and > showstat(procname); > Before doing that, it is usually necessary to change the > interface setting for displaying library procedures: > interface(verboseproc=2); > Many procedures call subprocedures whose names are > compound. Backquotes are needed for compound names: > eval(`convert/binary`); > Also, if the procedure is part of a module, then first > tell Maple that you do not want modules to be opaque: > kernelopts(opaquemodules=false); > > Almost all Maple routines can then be obtained. I do not > know what the percentage is, but if you exclude external > calls to others' code (e.g. the NAG code you cite), it is >90%.
That's good to know. > In particular, the Groebner code is obtainable in Maple 11. I find it very hard to believe that anybody can just read the source code to Faugere's implementation of F4. Are you sure? > As far as cost, I believe that the student edition of Maple > is extremely cheap. Compare this with textbook prices! The student edition is cheap. But as soon as one isn't a student the price is $1895 or more. That is not cheap. Comparing with textbooks isn't exactly fair, because students often sell textbooks back at the end of the semester, but can't do the same with software. (Also, textbooks are way overpriced.) How much do you pay for your copy of Maple, now that you are no longer a student (I assume)? > The definition of "open source" that you cite is not universal. True. But it is definitely the definition of open source that is meant in the Notices opinion piece. You might want to read http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_source which has a good discussion of where the term as it is used by most software engineers comes from and who popularized it and why: 'The decision by some people in the free software movement to use the label "open source" came out of a strategy session[2] held at Palo Alto, California, in reaction to Netscape's January 1998 announcement of a source code release for Navigator. The group of individuals at the session included Christine Peterson who suggested "open source", Todd Anderson, Larry Augustin, Jon Hall, Sam Ockman, and Eric S. Raymond.' > Maple was developed by a commercial company at much cost > over decades, and the company needs to stay solvent; so it > does not want the product given away. Also, the quote in > the license you forwarded is only restricting a "Third Party". Actually that's not correct. To quote from the license: "Without the express written permission of Maplesoft, Licensee shall not, and shall not permit any Third Party to:" ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ The Licensee is explicitly restricted, not just a Third Party. > Maple and Mathematica are huge systems, with a lot of > work in them done by people trained in mathematics. I > believe that trying to replicate them would be difficult. I agree, it is extremely difficult to make a system that is better than those systems. > I am a very big fan of open source, but the main objection > raised in your piece does not seem to apply to Maple. I am not convinced because: 1. Though one can read much of the Maple source code, you can't read all of it -- there is much that is still closed. As long as *anything* is closed, full inspection is not possible. 2. One cannot share Maple. To use Maple, once must pay license fees, and for professors and non-students these can be prohibitive. E.g., I contacted Maple 4 years ago because I wanted to use Maple to write a chapter for a book about using Maple for number theory. They told me it would cost me $495 for the "professor discount". When I said that was too much given what I was going to do with Maple, they said, "If you can get 4 of your colleagues to also buy copies, we'll sell them at $250/each." They absolutely would not budge on price. 3. One cannot legally take source code from Maple, modify it, and apply it to new research problems, since this is a direct violation of the license agreement. ------------- I hope you will write a letter to the AMS though arguing your point of view. -- 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/ -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
