AFAIK, the FSF has employed a bevy of lawyers who specialize in this sort of
thing. The FSF's website links to the following: [EMAIL PROTECTED] "for
questions about the GPL and free software licensing". I think that we should
get some lawyers in on this discussion.
Before seeking any sort of
William Stein wrote:
> If I spend three weeks, say, fixing a bug in your
> GPL'd that is in SAGE, then implement the bug fix, you can't just
> take my hard work and relicense it to Microsoft say. You'll have
> to take the version without my bugfix.
P.S: relicensing it to M$ was certainly one of
On Sat, 14 Oct 2006 22:24:17 -0700, Bill Hart <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> William Stein wrote:
>> On Sat, 14 Oct 2006 21:44:41 -0700, Bill Hart <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >> Definitely -- you are only allowed to relicense your work without
>> >> the bug fixes. If I spend three weeks, say, fix
William Stein wrote:
> On Sat, 14 Oct 2006 21:44:41 -0700, Bill Hart <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> Definitely -- you are only allowed to relicense your work without
> >> the bug fixes. If I spend three weeks, say, fixing a bug in your
> >> GPL'd that is in SAGE, then implement the bug fix, you
On Sat, 14 Oct 2006 21:44:41 -0700, Bill Hart <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Definitely -- you are only allowed to relicense your work without
>> the bug fixes. If I spend three weeks, say, fixing a bug in your
>> GPL'd that is in SAGE, then implement the bug fix, you can't just
>> take my hard wo
--- Forwarded message ---
From: "William Hart" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "William Stein" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc:
Subject: Re: Fwd: NTL speed test
Date: Sat, 14 Oct 2006 18:26:47 -0700
William,
Err, um, you can post that if you want. But I modified
it to read a bit better, in case Victor
William Stein wrote:
>
> Definitely -- you are only allowed to relicense your work without
> the bug fixes. If I spend three weeks, say, fixing a bug in your
> GPL'd that is in SAGE, then implement the bug fix, you can't just
> take my hard work and relicense it to Microsoft say. You'll have
>
On Sat, 14 Oct 2006 20:12:00 -0700, Bill Hart <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I will retain copyright on all my contributions,
Yet another vote for this being the right model to follow:
MODEL: All new code in SAGE is under a GPL-compatible license.
Authors have the option to keep copy
Hi,
I don't know why, but suddenly ssh access to sage.math is down.
This might be related to my attempts to install MATLAB a few minutes
ago, but I don't know for sure.
The website and wikis on sage.math still work fine, and of course
people can still get their files from:
http://sage.m
I will retain copyright on all my contributions, but I have some
questions anyway:
1) If the SAGE foundation ceases to exist, what happens to the
copyright of the code which the SAGE foundation eats? Does the
copyright become worthless, or does it revert to the original author?
2) Assuming I ret
> > That's not to say I couldn't be persuaded to release certain things
> > under a less restrictive license. I just feel the GPL is the safest
> > default option for me in terms of protecting my time investment. I
> > guess for me it's important for the same reason that attribution is
> > so impo
Here's all my fixes so far. The only ones still left are
ArithmeticError: Echelon form has not yet been computed.
which I know has been fixed elsewhere and two of memory(?) runtime
errors.
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
To post to this group, send email to sage-devel@g
On 10/14/06, William Stein <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> William Stein said:
> >> This was one very concrete thing I got out of the SAGE
> >> foundation discussion on Sunday -- people want to keep the
> >> copyright of the work they submit to SAGE, just like some
> >> people do with the Linux ker
On Sat, 14 Oct 2006 16:36:15 -0700, David Harvey
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Oct 14, 2006, at 6:22 PM, William Stein wrote:
>> Since you think it is a poor choice, I better respond.
>> My impression is that in fact the SAGE developers who want
>> to keep copyright do understand "how difficul
On Sat, 14 Oct 2006 15:51:59 -0700, Martin Albrecht
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sunday 15 October 2006 00:22, William Stein wrote:
>> William Stein said:
>> >> This was one very concrete thing I got out of the SAGE
>> >> foundation discussion on Sunday -- people want to keep the
>> >> copyri
On 10/14/06, William Stein <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> have a patch that defines __abs__ for integers modulo N to raise an
> ArithmeticError that explains that abs shouldn't make sense in that
> context,
> and the user should call lift instead.
>
Something like
def __abs__(self):
raise Ar
On Oct 14, 2006, at 6:22 PM, William Stein wrote:
> Since you think it is a poor choice, I better respond.
> My impression is that in fact the SAGE developers who want
> to keep copyright do understand "how difficult this might make
> it in the future to incorporate their work into software with
On 10/14/06, Martin Albrecht <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On Thursday 12 October 2006 15:55, David Joyner wrote:
> > William Stein wrote:
> > > Justin,
> > >
> > > I'm adding some information to the file that gets created to indicate
> > > that a package
> > > has been installed. E.g.,
> > >
>
On 10/14/06, William Stein <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
...
>
> Since you think it is a poor choice, I better respond.
> My impression is that in fact the SAGE developers who want
> to keep copyright do understand "how difficult this might make
> it in the future to incorporate their work into sof
On Sunday 15 October 2006 00:22, William Stein wrote:
> William Stein said:
> >> This was one very concrete thing I got out of the SAGE
> >> foundation discussion on Sunday -- people want to keep the
> >> copyright of the work they submit to SAGE, just like some
> >> people do with the Linux kerne
On Oct 14, 2006, at 15:22 , William Stein wrote:
>
> William Stein said:
>>> This was one very concrete thing I got out of the SAGE
>>> foundation discussion on Sunday -- people want to keep the
>>> copyright of the work they submit to SAGE, just like some
>>> people do with the Linux kernel.
>
William Stein said:
>> This was one very concrete thing I got out of the SAGE
>> foundation discussion on Sunday -- people want to keep the
>> copyright of the work they submit to SAGE, just like some
>> people do with the Linux kernel.
Bill Page replied:
> Yes. Personally I think this is a poor
On Sat, 14 Oct 2006 14:43:55 -0700, David Harvey
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> That's pretty impressive!
>
> So it seems if we want to get any faster than that, we need to work
> on the Python object construction stuff. To be honest, I'm a bit sick
> of thinking about that at the moment. It's som
On Oct 14, 2006, at 5:31 PM, Martin Albrecht wrote:
> # Malloc
> sage: time test_sage_add()
> CPU times: user 9.82 s, sys: 0.03 s, total: 9.85 s
>
> # PyMem_Malloc
> sage: time test_sage_add()
> CPU times: user 9.87 s, sys: 0.02 s, total: 9.89 s
>
> # omalloc
> sage: time test_sage_add()
> CPU t
On Thursday 12 October 2006 15:55, David Joyner wrote:
> William Stein wrote:
> > Justin,
> >
> > I'm adding some information to the file that gets created to indicate
> > that a package
> > has been installed. E.g.,
> >
> > sha:~/s/spkg/standard was$ more ../installed/pexpect-2.0
> > PACKAGE NAM
Hi again,
I've applied the patch David was referring to and these are the timing
results. Please note that I increased the for loop by a factor of 10.
# Malloc
sage: time test_mpz_add_init()
CPU times: user 2.13 s, sys: 0.01 s, total: 2.14 s
sage: time test_sage_add()
CPU times: user 9.82 s, s
Hi everyone,
I've run the test cases of Joel and David for omalloc,malloc, and
PyMem_Malloc. These are still using vanilla SAGE 1.4. I'll post my results
for the patched SAGE later.
mpz_add_init() where mpz_init is called in every loop:
# malloc
sage: time test_mpz_add_init()
CPU times: user
> The second question is this: python "int"s are faster to work with
> internally, correct? Originally, I had the default n=0 in the init
> function, but to make it work with the rest of the code I had to write
> n=Integer(0). This got me wondering, should I have the class store
> integers interna
On October 14, 2006 2:22 PM Gaby wrote:
> ...
> On the other hand, I consider C++ "old" -- it started as "C
> with Classes" around 1979, with first release in 1989. Still,
> today, it draws lots of enthusiasm. I suspect, it [lack of
> enthusiasm for Lisp and Aldor] is not just being old.
>
Go
On Oct 14, 2006, at 1:50 PM, Martin Albrecht wrote:
>
> On Saturday 14 October 2006 19:24, David Harvey wrote:
>> On Oct 13, 2006, at 6:43 PM, Martin Albrecht wrote:
>>> Thoughts?
>>
>> (1) I assume you're using omalloc as a drop-in replacement for
>> malloc, i.e. just substituting malloc/free/r
On Saturday 14 October 2006 19:24, David Harvey wrote:
> On Oct 13, 2006, at 6:43 PM, Martin Albrecht wrote:
> > Thoughts?
>
> (1) I assume you're using omalloc as a drop-in replacement for
> malloc, i.e. just substituting malloc/free/realloc or something like
> that. Does omalloc have a more soph
On Oct 13, 2006, at 6:43 PM, Martin Albrecht wrote:
> Thoughts?
(1) I assume you're using omalloc as a drop-in replacement for
malloc, i.e. just substituting malloc/free/realloc or something like
that. Does omalloc have a more sophisticated interface though?
(2) Have you run the timings fo
On October 13, 2006 6:34 PM Gaby wrote:
>
> Bill Page writes:
>
> |
> | On October 12, 2006 11:57 AM Alfredo wrote
> | >
> | > Hi Bill,
> | >
> | > Wondering if you are back from Sage Days, and how did it go?
> |
> | Yes, I am back. I would say that it went "well". And I have a
> | lot more
> Could you do some simpler benchmarks that compare malloc and omalloc,
> and don't have anything to do with Python? E.g., direct C-level
> mpz_init's, etc.? And allocation of int*'s, etc. That's *all* very
> relevant to implementing SAGE.
Sure, will do. What do you mean by " allocation of int
On Saturday 14 October 2006 18:25, David Joyner wrote:
> I'm on the debian science email list, which is very low
> traffic, and would be happy to post a statement there.
> Should I just ask for a Debian developer to
> contact William Stein (or Martin Albrecht or me)
> if someone reading is a math
On Sat, 14 Oct 2006 09:25:17 -0700, David Joyner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> I'm on the debian science email list, which is very low
> traffic, and would be happy to post a statement there.
> Should I just ask for a Debian developer to
> contact William Stein (or Martin Albrecht or me)
> if som
I'm on the debian science email list, which is very low
traffic, and would be happy to post a statement there.
Should I just ask for a Debian developer to
contact William Stein (or Martin Albrecht or me)
if someone reading is a math package manager
for Debian?
On
On Fri, 13 Oct 2006 12:44:23 -0700, Martin Albrecht
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> I haven't thought about this too carefully, so maybe someone will
>> indulge me by shooting it down.
>>
>> > An alternative is that we could define == to be "there exists a
>> > 'natural'
>> > SAGE
>> > map in bot
On Fri, 13 Oct 2006 15:43:47 -0700, Martin Albrecht
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On Friday 13 October 2006 16:29, William Stein wrote:
>> omalloc is now GPL'd! See below.
>
> Excellent! Let's make sure the Debian people are informed. They might
> reconsider packaging Singular (which would me
39 matches
Mail list logo
