On Tue, Apr 22, 2008 at 2:39 AM, mabshoff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > 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?
>From the little I know, the situation -- as it has been carefully explained to me -- is far more complicated, and I'm not sure it is one that can be resolved by emails. All I can say is that there really are good guys at NAG who would not like to see Axiom die (as it was) and they did the best to make it open source under a very liberal license (no poison). The surrounding environment and conditions for releasing Aldor had changed from what they were back when Axiom was released. I would recommend you talk to Mike Dewar, Stephen Watt, Barry Trager (among others) about the situation. However, I doubt it can be resolved by public emails -- and if it is resolved by public emails, then that is fantastic!. > > > > 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? Because of licensing issues -- OpenAxiom is released under BSD license -- and dependency problems, I cannot make OpenAxiom purely depending on Aldor. Whoever, it should be possible to call Aldor libraries from OpenAxiom and vice versa (and if that does not work, it is likely a bug in OpenAxiom). As I have stated many times, and part of the reasons for OpenAxiom, I would like to get away from Lisp as soon as possible: This isn't negociable. >From my perspective, it is NOT a scalable technology for writing large scale systems given the zoo of users, developers, and development environments we have today. I know Lisp enthusiasts think the opposite and are likely to say "you don't get it". At the moment, I don't have formal benchmark to assess OpenAxiom, except the tiny regression testsuite. I must also confess that most of my work wo far has concentrated on getting rid of as mush Lisps as can and fixing the compiler and interpreter. The design of the Algebraic Virtual Machine for OpenAxiom is still progressing. -- Gaby --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
