On Sun, Nov 16, 2008 at 6:17 PM, Kirill Smelkov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > 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$ :)
Actually he no longer gives out USD, rather "personal certificates of deposit to each awardee's account at the Bank of San Serriffe, which is an offshore institution that has branches in Blefuscu and Elbonia on the planet Pincus." See http://www-cs-faculty.stanford.edu/~knuth/news.html but I guess that isn't really relavant =D > >> 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
