2010/2/22 Ondrej Certik <ond...@certik.cz>: > Hi, > > some FEMhub users are confused by seeing the name "Sage" in > warnings and error messages, and in various installation scripts > and messages. They are there because FEMhub uses some > functionality of Sage (as Ubuntu uses some functionality of > Debian). However, the word "Debian" does not appear in > Ubuntu (for a normal user). We would like to design a similar model, > acknowledge > Sage for using their functionality, but limit the occurrence of > the word "Sage" for FEMhub users. Here are a few ideas how > we would like to do it, please feel free to comment: > > > The best model to learn from is Debian vs Ubuntu. If you take any
Hi, I agree that Debian vs Ubuntu is an excellent model. I also agree with all of your other comments in this thread, and strongly support your branding efforts. I also hope you can share your experiences with how they go, and ideas for making something like this more generically possible. I would be thrilled if someday there were dozens of rebranded specialized Sage-based distributions out there. It's good to make this as easy as possible, and also ensuring that people understand that it is their right to do so. I think that's the best thing to do to maximize the chances of us working together as a community instead of competing. William > Debian source package and recompile it in Ubuntu, most of the time it > will just work, any new Ubuntu release starts by upgrading all > packages to their Debian versions (+custom Ubuntu modifications) and > it is a common practice, when fixing bugs or upgrading packages, to > just do it for Debian and it will then be synchronized in Ubuntu as > well. Also, you can take Debian and upgrade it to Ubuntu, or vice > versa (I did both, so I know it works), so for practical purposes, > Debian and Ubuntu is the same thing. However, when you go to > ubuntu.com, install Ubuntu and use it, you can't confuse it with > Debian, as all brands are just Ubuntu and you can treat it as if > Debian didn't exist. If you are a developer, you can learn all about > it at [2]. > > > So after discussing this with Pavel, I propose that we do the same > thing with FEMhub and Sage, e.g. FEMhub being derived from Sage (like > Ubuntu is derived from Debian ---- it's just an analogy, because Sage > is a massive project, and in FEMhub we are currently way smaller), we > fix all FEMhub to only mention > FEMhub and make sure that you can treat it as if Sage didn't exist > (this is mostly done, but not 100%). At the same time, maintain full > Sage compatibility (this currently works 100%, as far as I know). We > should have a section on our pages and/or in the README file > explaining the relationship and acknowledging Sage. > > By doing: > > $ git grep Sage > > in the femhub git repository[3], you can see that we need to fix the > following files: > > * COPYING.txt > * README.txt > * femhub > * spkg/base/prereq-0.3-install > * spkg/base/sage-env > * spkg/base/sage-spkg > * spkg/install > * spkg/standard/sage_scripts/* # lots of files in there > > Then we need to change (or check) the following packages: > > * femhub_notebook (I think it still mentions Sage in there, but maybe > it's fixed already) --- this is based on the Sage notebook, and it > will stay in FEMhub for the foreseeable future (we will also add > codenode and maybe also our own notebook and/or modifications of the > Sage notebook or codenode, depending on our manpower). > * fortran (I think it might mention Sage in the build scripts) > > > Note about copyright files and licenses --- the Sage build system is > GPLed as noted in COPYING.txt and the common practice (in Ubuntu) is > to ship the original Debian copyright file (and it mentions Debian) > with all packages, so I suggest we just add some FEMhub notes at the > beginning of the file. In general, all opensource licenses require (in > some form) to copy the license somewhere, then we are free to modify > the sources (e.g. change Sage->FEMhub) and since we will not change > the license of the code, that should be it. Another thing is > copyright, e.g. for example this file: > > sagenb/notebook/tutorial.py > > contains: > > ############################################################################# > # Copyright (C) 2006, 2007 William Stein <wst...@gmail.com> > # Distributed under the terms of the GNU General Public License (GPL) > # The full text of the GPL is available at: > # http://www.gnu.org/licenses/ > ############################################################################# > > > I don't know what we are required to do (as directed by the GPL > license), but I suggest we simply leave this as is, and if we choose > to do some deeper modifications (as opposed to just changing > Sage->FEMhub), we simply add there a line "Copyright (c) 2009 hp-FEM > group at UNR" and leave the rest intact. Is this how it works? Or > should we do something else here? > > Otherwise, all should be clear. > > The goal is to keep all copyright and attribution to whoever it > belongs, just change what the normal user would experience when > working with FEMhub. > > > Ondrej > > > [1] http://hpfem.org/ > [2] http://www.ubuntu.com/community/ubuntustory/debian > [3] http://github.com/certik/femhub > > -- > 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 > -- William Stein Associate Professor of Mathematics University of Washington http://wstein.org -- 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 To unsubscribe from this group, send email to sage-devel+unsubscribegooglegroups.com or reply to this email with the words "REMOVE ME" as the subject.
