William Stein wrote: > On Mon, May 5, 2008 at 11:57 AM, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> Your question is equivalent to, "Do we want to allow people to charge >> money for running Sage, but not redistributing it?" > > No, it isn't equivalent to that. That is a different and interesting > question, but it is not equivalent. > >> I say, yes. Imagine a private contractor who uses Sage. Perhaps this >> person >> modifies their version of Sage to include a proprietary algorithm. Then, >> they >> charge their clients for work done using Sage. Obviously, they won't want to >> give away the farm by distributing this copy. > > If they do this and distribute the result just to their client then that's > fine. It's all "in house". That's allowed by the GPL. If they distribute > the result to the "general public" that would violate the GPL. Money > or not isn't relevant actually.
Where I think Williams use of the word "result" means "the resulting software combination of Sage and their proprietary algorithm", not "the result of running some work in Sage". Obviously any mathematical results they achieve using Sage are free and clear from any Sage licensing terms. (as opposed to other systems, which may limit use to noncommercial use, non-military use, etc.!) It seemed to me that Timothy was saying that the people were running jobs in Sage or giving clients access to a running copy of Sage on the company servers, not redistributing a binary. Jason --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
