Looks like the moderator of the unmoderated gmp-discuss list has either gone to bed or is not accepting any more submissions on this topic. I've received no response, not even an automated one to tell me that it is awaiting moderator approval, as I usually get.
But below is my latest response so it gets on the record sooner rather than later. Bill Hart. ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Bill Hart <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: 29 May 2008 22:53 Subject: Re: GMP license problem, anyone? To: Torbjorn Granlund <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> On 29/05/2008, Torbjorn Granlund <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > "Bill Hart" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Secondly, Microsoft Research are one of SAGE's customers. Microsoft > has a policy of not even running software with v3. > > > I heard such a rumour, but I refused to believe it; Microsoft's money > has dictated what license a project previously known to be free (as in > freedom) will use. > Well, in his post to this *unmoderated* list (which was submitted before mine, but is yet to appear), also viewable here: http://groups.google.co.uk/group/mpir-devel/browse_thread/thread/13b44a2d7ad4b48a# William Stein confirms the rumour. He also speaks on behalf of SAGE (he started the SAGE project) and answers your sepculation about the reasons for a fork, definitively in my opinion. Why speculate when you can get it from the horses mouth. > There is a contract between Microsoft and SAGE stipulating that SAGE > stay GPL 2. Do you deny this? I don't know. William Stein might know. I have been told SAGE will have an MSR special version which will be GPLv2+. As I have visited MSR and one of their researchers was very keen to use FLINT, I want FLINT to be in the MSR special version. > > It is certainly in Microsoft's monopolistic interest to sabotage Free > Software projects, and to cause forks to be created. A Judas kiss > from Microsoft. > I don't see how a fork will sabotage GMP. Forking is one of the essential freedoms that GPL allows. When you see Microsoft allowing people to fork their operating system, that will be the day. Incidentally, Peter Montgomery, who just made a substantial contribution to GMP-ECM works at Microsoft Research. I spoke with him about this work when I was there. > I like version 2 and license my code under v2+. I didn't need all > the extra stuff in version 3, there was no pressing need for it, I > didn't care for it when it came along. It just adds a whole load of > extra stuff which I don't care about. In other words I feel v3 is > overreaching for a general purpose software license. > > > You're still not very specific. Hand on heart: Have you read the v3 > license text? I have read v2 and I started to read version 3 some time ago. Once I got to all the bits that had been tacked on to a perfectly good license, i.e. stuff about patent agression, tivoisation, cryptographic keys, I stopped reading. Really, how is all that stuff actually relevant enough to GMP that you would choose to go against the trend of all these other projects using yours and make your future code v3+ instead of just leaving it as v2+. > > > That's about 65000 USD short of the amount I was told someone was > requested for merging of a patch by yourself into GMP. > > > Sorry, but what does "merge a patch by myself" mean? > Someone else claimed, and I'm not stating it is fact, merely that they claimed, that they wrote a patch for GMP and you asked them for an inordinately large sum of money to merge it into GMP. Can you confirm that you have never asked for large sums of money to include patches into GMP? > > Well apparently they didn't pay you. Again, good to have > misconceptions dealt with. There are some widespread misconceptions > out there, and one of them is that you ask very high fees for > merging patches. > > > I think this sort of insinuations is what spread them. > > I think it's rather well-know that I am not making money of GMP. On > the contrary, I have volunteered about 5 years on it, instead of > working for a salary. > In that case, I am really confused why GMP is LGPL'd and not GPL'd. Do you like the big MA*'s selling your code back to you? Why don't you stop it and make GMP GPL'd? I thought they were paying you to keep it LGPL'd. Obviously I'm completely mistaken. The Free Software Foundation don't encourage the use of LGPL for libraries any more except in special circumstances (e.g. where there is a commercial library which already does the same thing). So please tell me, why is GMP still LGPL'd? > > My question to you is, why did GMP change to v3+ and not remain with > v2+. What extra freedoms does it give users of your code or what extra > protections does it give you and how is that relevant specifically to > GMP? > > > I will not reiterate known aspects of the v3. But please read e.g.: > http://www.gnu.org/licenses/quick-guide-gplv3.html > I read this through carefully, and I see nothing much I care about. None of it is really relevant to my project. > > What reason would I have for wanting to switch to v3+ on any of my > code or any code I include. > > > If you're fundamentally sympathetic with the goals of the Free > Software Movement, I think you should consider a switch. > And likewise I think you should switch to GPL. > > 1) GMP has a slow release cycle. Patches are only considered for > inclusion in the next major release of GMP, and that next major > release is 5, which numerous places on your website you say is years > off. This means we won't see decent assembly support for Core 2 or AMD > 64 for years. > > > You will find out. > That's really helpful. Can you be more specific? So AMD are gonna give you some patches. Whoopdidoo. And will you break the established rule and release those in the GMP distribution before 5 comes out? > > 2) So far the GMP project has refused to accept patches which will > allow GMP to build under [insert proprietry OS and compiler here]. > > > This is X fork propaganda. Your statement (made elsewhere) to "Make > GMP build under Foo OS" doesn't perhaps say the "official" GMP doesn't > build there, but it surely tries to gove the reader such an > impression. > If there's something incorrect in our official propaganda, please send me a short statement by email about what is incorrect, I will investigate and lobby to have it changed. I actually don't know what you are referring to here. Most of the propaganda was written by me with input from others, so it may just be a misunderstanding I have. By the way, you are welcome to submit anything to the X fork if you license it GPLv2+ or LGPL v2+ or something that is compatible with that. I'd even give you subversion access in a blink. As far as I'm concerned, you would be a trusted developer. > I have rejected "project" files for Microsoft's IDE, but that doesn't > mean GMP doesn't build under Windoze. > I can get a 64 bit version of GMP working on Win 64? How? Why did you reject the project files from Brian? They extend the users of GMP to a very large and important group of people. > > 3) The development process for GMP is not transparent. What gets in is > solely the maintainers decision. > > > Very true. GMP is not everyone's dump. But now there is a fork that > will fill that role. :-) Please send them our way! We'll have some kind of process to eliminate unworthy code, just as SAGE now does. So I hardly think dump is quite the right word. But we'll see. In some respects I sympathise with your drive to reject almost everything and keep development cycles extremely long to guarantee the quality of the code. But in so many ways it's a policy that has hurt the mathematical software community quite a lot. I have a pending grant application in which I will do large computations relying fundamentally on GMP. I'd need approximately twice the computing time if I used vanilla GMP. I just can't sit around and wait for years for a single maintainer to catch up. Whilst I perfectly understand the demands on your time, it is precisely for that reason that I believe GMP development should be more open. Bill. --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
