On May 6, 5:43 pm, Ivan Andrus <g...@macmail.com> wrote:
> On May 6, 2009, at 12:09 AM, mabshoff wrote:
>
> > Note that any GPLed codebase like Singular or pari would also be viral
> > to high level code and I cannot believe that this is the way the GPL
> > is intended. Anything using readline, i.e. IPython, would be infected,
> > too, and that goes way too far IMHO (You can obviously use libedit or
> > no readline at all to work around this).
>
> I could very well be wrong, but according to RMS anything using
> readline *is*
> infected:http://clisp.cvs.sourceforge.net/*checkout*/clisp/clisp/doc/Why-CLISP...
Yes, that is universally agreed upon. The issue is what is a derived
work when GPLed interpreter uses extension modules that are GPL due do
linking against GPLed libraries.
I find it strange that code written on top of a GPLed interpreter is
fine, but if you write a GPLed interpreter that loads GPLed extensions
according the the FSF that code written on top of the interpreter is
subject to the GPL (IANAL, this is how I read the FSF's position).
> I would be interested in knowing why this is _not_ the case, i.e. what
> caused clisp to have problems but not IPython.
IPython is licensed under the new BSD license, so it is GPL
compatible.
> Not a big fan of the GPL,
Well, that is a whole other thread if it gets started, but it should
be on sage-flame :)
> Ivan
Cheers,
Michael
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
To post to this group, send email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
sage-devel-unsubscr...@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel
URLs: http://www.sagemath.org
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
