On Sun, Jun 21, 2009 at 9:14 PM, William Stein<wst...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Mon, Jun 22, 2009 at 1:42 AM, Gonzalo > Tornaria<torna...@math.utexas.edu> wrote: >> At some point in time, Sage included code which was GPLv2 only. >> Authors were requested to extend their license to be GPLv2+, to allow >> the choice of the GPLv3. It seems fair to request that GPL v3 code be >> extended to GPLv2+, to allow the choice of the GPLv2. > > For individual code that makes good sense. For some libraries, that > doesn't work in the same way in practice. For example, if I were to > ask the FSF to relicense GMP, GSL and GNUtls as GPLv2+ using the above > argument, I suspect they wouldn't.
Granted. It's still a worthy goal, where practical. The main issue I see is that if core dependencies were GPL v3+, then Sage would not be really GPL v2+ for practical purposes. "We are Borg. You will be assimilated. Resistance is futile." Gonzalo --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
