On Tue, Apr 22, 2008 at 3:25 PM, mabshoff wrote: > > I googled for it and it seems lenny is using 2.6.7 while sid is using > 2.6.7-36.1. So I might have gotten my wires crossed with unstable > here. So my bad.
Beware of the release numbering. The most recent reference I could find is: http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/gcl-devel/2008-01/msg00002.html "2.6.8pre by contrast is nearer at hand. I do think we will need a windows installer for this release. I'd also like a working mac intel port. Otherwise, the image (packaged as Debian gcl-2.6.7-36) is carrying axiom, maxima, acl2, and hol88 to all 12 Debian platforms." So I guess as of January this year Debian "2.6.7-36.1" was actually "2.6.8pre" in cvs. > But it still raises the point that the website should either > have snap shots or a pointer to the Debian page. I know that > Camm is heavily involved with Debian, so I knew where to look > after the 2.7CVS failed for me the first time I checked it eight > months or so ago. > Yes it would be nice to have accurate up to date information at the gcl website. Maybe a wiki would be nice but it still takes someone with time and motivation. > > ... > > > Well, I think NAG chose the "non-commercial only" license on > > > purpose. > > > > Well yes, of course it was on purpose. They have stated that they > > felt obligated to do this by the terms under which they originally > > received Axiom (and Aldor) from IBM. > > Odd, IBM as a whole seems to be very OS friendly, but in reality > it somewhat depends on the unit you deal with. > I also suspect that if it were possible to approach IBM about the license situation with Axiom and Aldor now, one might obtain a different picture than the one presented by NAG. But NAG's relationship with IBM was circa 1995 and this is now. Different people are involved. > > > NAG itself is a non-commerical organization. > > Well, be that as it may, but their numerical library isn't free. Therein lies the rub. Originally, acquiring Axiom was a way for NAG to package and market it's numerical library. They did a *lot* of work to link Axiom to the numerical library - all of which was lost in the open source version of Axiom. When the numerical library was licensed to Maple circa 2000, NAG found themselves in a bit of a conflicted position. > ... > Nope, I am fully aware of "the power of Sage." But "let's get $FOO > into Sage" is not the solution and will not magically make a project > better. > It seems to me that my proposal for the place that Axiom/Aldor could have in Sage has more depth to it than that... :-( > ... Regards, Bill Page. --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
