On Jun 23, 2010, at 6:44 AM, v...@ukr.net wrote:
Hello!
On Tue, 22 Jun 2010 18:45:43 -0700
William Stein <wst...@gmail.com> wrote:
...
The core Sage library, since we control it and many people don't like
GPL3 so much.
Excuse me for interrupting a technical discussion, but I just wanted
to ask what is wrong with licensing Sage under GPLv3? Sage is a free
software, am I right. I thought that all GPLs are for free software
and
that all of them do guarantee freedom to use and modify the software.
If that is true, then why do you have to stick with GPLv2 only code?
Oh, and by the way, is it possible to distribute one part of a
program under GPLv2 and the other part - under GPlv3? Or do you have
to
distribute everything under GPLv3 if it contains some parts released
under GPLv3? And how does it affect Sage's development?
When you link GPLv2 and GPLv3 code, which is completely legal, the
resulting binary must be GPLv3. However, there are a lot of things
about v3 that people don't like, so we'd rather not force people to
use it if they don't want (v2 code can be used in a v3 project, but
not the other way around).
- Robert
--
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
