On Apr 22, 9:15 am, "Alfredo Portes" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 22, 2008 at 1:41 AM, mabshoff
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Hi,
> > Well, I think NAG chose the "non-commercial only" license on purpose.
> > We have discussed the issue here before and everybody agrees that it
> > is GPL incompatible. But I have little hope that Sage's potential
> > interest in Aldor would get somebody to change the license. A "non-
> > commercial only" Open Source license is often the kiss of death to a
> > project. Abandoned by its commercial parent company, but not free in
> > reality it is neither here nor there. Either you make the code free
> > [your choice: GPL, LGPL, MIT, BSD] or you don't. It is either Open
> > Source code or it isn't, just like you can't be a little big
> > pregnant :)
>
> Yes, just like QT...oh wait.
Well, I don't think the situation is comparable. TrollTech understood
Open Source way back. Axiom was released under BSD, so why the
different treatment for Aldor?
> A petition to really open source Aldor won't hurt
> I think. What is the worst that can happen? Yes, I know the answer "go and
> start one" :-(
Out of curiosity: Are there download statistics of Aldor binaries and
source? Is there any kind of estimate of user numbers? How far along
is FriCAS and/or OpenAxiom from using "pure" Aldor and no lisp? Are
there any benchmarks to compare those two?
> My not needed 2 cents,
>
> Alfredo
Cheers,
Michael
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
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://www.sagemath.org
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
