I don't understand the problem. gcc, for instance, can be used to compile commercial software. Is'nt this the same situation?
Kjetil On Thu, Sep 27, 2012 at 4:55 AM, Robert Bradshaw <rober...@math.washington.edu> wrote: > On Wed, Sep 26, 2012 at 10:56 PM, Geoffrey Irving <irv...@naml.us> wrote: >> On Wed, Sep 26, 2012 at 10:42 PM, Robert Bradshaw >> <rober...@math.washington.edu> wrote: >>> On Wed, Sep 26, 2012 at 8:54 PM, Geoffrey Irving <irv...@naml.us> wrote: >>>> 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. >>> >>> The snippet you posted doesn't "link against" Sage anymore than >>> Python. I don't hold with the philosophy that all Sage worksheets are >>> automatically GPL. What about snippets of Sage code used as examples >>> in published works? I'm not a lawyer, but as far as I know not even >>> the lawyers have hashed this out. >> >> Here's an example of a thread with people voicing opinions in either >> direction (this one in favor of copyleft): >> >> http://www.mail-archive.com/sage-devel@googlegroups.com/msg23091.html > > Yes, I was an active participant in that thread, > http://www.mail-archive.com/sage-devel@googlegroups.com/msg23126.html > I don't think much has changed since then. > >> Unfortunately, in this situation I have to assume the worst, >> especially if the lawyers haven't hashed it out. > > Well, it's a question of ascertaining the risk. I think the risk is > low (that is the risk this being an actual violation as decided by the > courts, let alone the risk of actually being taken to court on it). > The more important factor is respecting the intent of the community, > which you're clearly trying to do. > >>> As another data point, the GNU Bison project has an exception, but >>> links in pure GPL libraries (iconv) that don't make mention of any >>> exception. My hypothesis is that this is OK because the part of the >>> source included in the output is part of Bison, not iconv. >> >> That's a good point, and would apply to my case as well (all the >> copied snippets are bits of C++ code unrelated to Sage). Not sure if >> I get it by the lawyers, but definitely worth a try. Thanks! > > (To go to one extreem, I suppose one could put all the C++ code > strings in a separate file and call them a second input to your > program, after all they're more data than code.) > >>>>> 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. >>> >>> That may be a fine thing to do, but it's sad when legal fluff does >>> nothing but add busywork... >> >> Agreed! Sage is a wonderful system, and it's a shame to not be able >> to use it. On the other hand, copyleft certainly isn't legal fluff, >> and people's choices should be respected. > > Oh, I agree. I'm talking about the corner cases like what line one > needs to cross for a simple script to be considered a derived work and > how that impacts re-distributing its output. I would be extremely > surprised if any Sage developer morally objects to you licensing this > output as you wish (though opinions may vary widely as to its > legality). > > - Robert > > -- > 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. > > -- "If you want a picture of the future - imagine a boot stamping on the human face - forever." George Orwell (1984) -- 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.
