David, On Sun, Nov 16, 2008 at 08:27:10AM -0500, David Joyner wrote: > > Wow, a 29 page email! Printing it actually crashed gmail in epiphany, which is > a new bug AFAIK, so you have potentially contributed to improving google's > gmail program:-)
Really?! If Google were Knuth, I'd receive 2.56$ :) > While I was reading your email and composing this, Ondrej replied, which > covers a lot of what I would say, so I just have one comment. > > I assume by LGPL you mean LGPLv2+. (Otherwise, I have more comments:-) Please comment on this (http://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/) """ GNU Lesser General Public License (LGPL) version 2.1 ---------------------------------------------------- This is the previous version of the LGPL: a free software license, but not a strong copyleft license, because it permits linking with non-free modules. It is compatible with GPLv2 and GPLv3. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ """ > You said: > > > I'm proposing LGPL which is a different, "non viral" license [1]. > > Perhaps I misunderstand you, but AFAIK this is false. Any modification > and public re-distribution of LGPL software must carry the > LGPL or GPL license. See section 2 in http://www.gnu.org/licenses/lgpl.html Yes, you misunderstood me. Both GPL and LGPL require any modifications to the software to be made public on redistribution, but GPL *also* requires that any _other_ software, which uses our software in the same process, should be under GPL *too*. That's the difference -- GPL covers our software + affects users and maked them GPL too, while LGPL covers only our software and does not affect users: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNU_Lesser_General_Public_License > The GPL and LGPL are complicated legal documents and I agree with > what Ondrej said about your misconceptions. In my opinion, you would have > had a much stronger argument if you would have argued GPLv2+ vs modified BSD, > since there the differences are more clearly delineated. (Of course, the > sympy developers may have voted against that too, I don't know.) I'm advocating for LGPL because it would protect SymPy and be loyal to software which uses SymPy. Since SymPy is a small library with well-defined task I think this is the perfect fit. -- Kirill --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
