On Wed, Sep 26, 2012 at 6:03 PM, Robert Bradshaw <rober...@math.washington.edu> wrote: > On Wed, Sep 26, 2012 at 4:28 PM, Geoffrey Irving <irv...@naml.us> wrote: >> Hello, >> >> I recently used sage to write a code generation script for exact >> geometric predicates: >> >> https://github.com/otherlab/simplicity >> >> Since it's a python script that imports sage, the simplicity script is >> GPL. > > Not automatically; often Sage is used more as an interpreter than a > library: > http://www.gnu.org/licenses/old-licenses/gpl-2.0-faq.html#IfInterpreterIsGPL
The opposite has been said in previous discussions on this mailing list: like most GPL python libraries, including sage is amount to linking against sage, which means the script doing the including must be GPL. I'm fine with this situation. > That being said, the GPL only covers *distribution*. If indeed you > built on Sage and wanted to release the resulting work, you would have > to do so under the GPL (or a compatible license, and you could release > it under other licences or public domain in addition to that). If you > just want to use it on your own machine(s), or share it internally, > there's no requirement to so license it. You can then do whatever you > want with the output. (If the output contained significant portions of > Sage itself, that would be a different story.) Code that can't be distributed essentially doesn't exist for my purposes. > That being said, a runtime exemption could make a lot of sense, e.g. > if we want to augment our fast_callable classes to spit out chunks of > code in various languages. Okay. For now, it looks like the easiest way may be to port my code to sympy. Thanks, Geoffrey -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "sage-support" group. To post to this group, send email to sage-support@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to sage-support+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sage-support?hl=en.
