> Regarding: "I was told that a GPL package must not install a non-GPL package."
>
> The above can never legally come up, right? If a program Foo is "GPL"
> and fundamentally depends on a program Bar that is licensed
> GPL-incompatible, then distributing Foo at all violates the GPL right?
No. Can you prove that by specifically pointing to the sections of the GPL?
Let's say I write a program A and just distribute that as binary for any
platform you like. (It's propriety... I'll never show you the source,
but you can have free binaries. == Hypothetical license.)
Let's say I write a program B which heavily depends on/links to A. I
distribute the source code of B on my website under the terms of the GPL.
Tell me the section of the GPL that would force me to give you the
sources of A! Note: I don't distribute B as a binary. (Of course, if I
do that, it includes A and thus A would fall under the GPL.)
You just get sources from me. I don't even claim that B is a "program".
I just distribute a collection of source files. So what?
> Regarding: "so I attempt to install them with "sage -i" in the
> spkg-install script. The bad thing is I hard-code the package
> numbers, so that will break if they are updated."
>
> Don't do that. Instead do this:
>
> sage -c "install_package('package_name')"
>
> without the version number. The "install_package" command in the Sage
> library automatically determined the most recent version of a package.
Everyone knows that this is dangerous, too. It might be that a package
needs a certain version of its dependency and does not work properly
with the newest version.
Look at zc.buildout for package management.
Ralf
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
To post to this group, send an email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to
sage-devel-unsubscr...@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel
URL: http://www.sagemath.org
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
