On Nov 12, 2:00 am, Jeroen Demeyer <jdeme...@cage.ugent.be> wrote: > On 2010-11-11 18:43, Dima Pasechnik wrote: > > > No. GPLv2+ - compatibility is a weaker requirement than the GPLv2 - > > compatibility. > > Just as x>=2 is weaker than x=2. > > Probably we are using the word "compatibility" in a different way. > Essentially what I wanted to say is the following: > > If Sage claims that all the code it contains can be licenced under > GPLv2+, then it cannot contain GPLv3 (or GPLv3+) licenced code.
There is no such claim to be found, IMHO. Parts of Sage are covered by different licenses, and it's not possible to force one of them on the rest of the code. I think this is clear. > > So I think the following still holds: > either > 1) the requirement "spkgs must be able to be released under GPLv2+" must > be removed > 2) we release Sage under GPLv3+ > 3) we remove all GPLv3+ code from Sage > 1) is already violated by GLPK. De facto it is already removed, dus... Dima > Personally, I would go for 2). > > Jeroen. -- 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
