I don't think these issues are simple.
Interestingly, Magma will not be able to use GMP under LGPLv3 as a
statically linked library, since as a combined work it must satisfy
section 4d of the LGPLv3, which excludes distributing a binary already
linked statically with GMP, since you are supposed t
Hi John,
I would strongly suggest that this construction be compatible
with isogenies (also yet to be implemented). Thus one should
be able to compose isomorphisms and isogenies with one
another. Moreover, one should be able to access the defining
polynomials -- this is useful to verify the def
>> By the way, the GPL licensing, generally, is the main thing that prevents
>> me
>> personally from contributing to SAGE.
>
> Is it your personal distate for the GPL, or is that you don't want to be
> forced
> to license code under the GPL.
Both, I think.
> You can contribute code to Sage u
> Could you please elaborate on this a bit? What is it about the GPL
> that you don't like? If you were to contribute code to SAGE, what
> would be your ideal license?
My ideal license would be MIT. I don't like the GPL in general. I read it a
few times up to some point where I said to myself -
On 9/23/07, Alec Mihailovs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > This is only perhaps ideal from the typical end user's point of view.
> > The GPL-style license is greatly preferred over the BSD/MIT as the
> > license for Sage by most Sage developers (this was discussed a lot
> > at Sage Days 2). In fa
On Sep 23, 2007, at 11:06 PM, Alec Mihailovs wrote:
>
>> This is only perhaps ideal from the typical end user's point of view.
>> The GPL-style license is greatly preferred over the BSD/MIT as the
>> license for Sage by most Sage developers (this was discussed a lot
>> at Sage Days 2). In fact
On 9/23/07, Alec Mihailovs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Well, one possibility is to have GPLv2 in the main distribution and LGPLv3
> > as an optional package.
>
> Another possibility is to distribute SAGE-new parts under any of GPL2, GPL3,
> or GPL2 and later, and distribute all the rest as a co
> This is only perhaps ideal from the typical end user's point of view.
> The GPL-style license is greatly preferred over the BSD/MIT as the
> license for Sage by most Sage developers (this was discussed a lot
> at Sage Days 2). In fact, several of the top contributors to Sage have
> explicitly
> Well, one possibility is to have GPLv2 in the main distribution and LGPLv3
> as an optional package.
Another possibility is to distribute SAGE-new parts under any of GPL2, GPL3,
or GPL2 and later, and distribute all the rest as a collection of packages,
each with its own license, without havi
On Sep 23, 2007, at 10:20 PM, William Stein wrote:
> much in years, and likewise GMP hasn't had anything interesting
> happen release-wise in nearly 2 years. (The most interesting GMP
> work has
> been outside the GMP project.)
I'm not sure I agree with this. I strongly suspect GMP is likely
My vote would be to change the sage license to "GPLv2 or later" and
try to get the Singular developers to do likewise. Mainly because
that is less work.
Does changing Sage to "v2 or later" require Sage to adopted future GPL
changes? My interpretation is that it simply gives users the option
to
> In fact, it is impossible to combine GPLv2 only and LGPLv3 only code
> in they same project, under any license.
Well, one possibility is to have GPLv2 in the main distribution and LGPLv3
as an optional package.
Alec
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
To post to this grou
On 9/23/07, Chris Chiasson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> since you asked for reactions:
>
> * every bug fixed should result in a doctest: Example Zombie det()
> problem with LinBox, considered fixed twice, but reopened in both
> cases.
>
> ^^^ this should be first (even though this is an uno
On 9/23/07, Alec Mihailovs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > GPLv2 and GPLv3 are actually incompatible. You might think
> > GPLvN should be compatible with GPLv(N-1) but that isnt the case here.
> > At the moment, I think SAGE cannot be released under GPLv3.
>
> Ideally, the alternative to M* CASes
On 9/23/07, Joel B. Mohler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > The clam that GPLv3 forbids DRM schemes is called a "myth" by Ed Burnette
> > http://blogs.zdnet.com/Burnette/?p=354
> > I think early drafts of GPLv3 were more anti-DRm than the final draft.
>
> I agree with his interpretation of the parag
On 9/23/07, Joel B. Mohler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sunday 23 September 2007 15:46, William Stein wrote:
> > However, in the COPYING file for Sage itself, I wrote: "All original
> > SAGE code is distributed under the terms of the GNU General Public
> > License *Version 2*."
> >
> > Just ou
On Sunday 23 September 2007 20:26, David Joyner wrote:
> On 9/23/07, Joel B. Mohler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Well, I wouldn't say I'd be "angry", but I dislike the GPLv3. My
> > principle reason for disliking it is section 3. I didn't read up on
> > acticle 11 of WIPO, but my understanding
> Ideally, the alternative to M* CASes should be released under more
> permissive license, such as MIT or new BSD. But the current situation
> seems
> to be far from ideal :(
>From other point of view, Python, for instance, has its own license. SAGE,
probably, could be licensed under its own li
since you asked for reactions:
* every bug fixed should result in a doctest: Example Zombie det()
problem with LinBox, considered fixed twice, but reopened in both
cases.
^^^ this should be first (even though this is an unordered list)
* tickets are kind of like homicides: They either get
> GPLv2 and GPLv3 are actually incompatible. You might think
> GPLvN should be compatible with GPLv(N-1) but that isnt the case here.
> At the moment, I think SAGE cannot be released under GPLv3.
Ideally, the alternative to M* CASes should be released under more
permissive license, such as MIT o
On 9/23/07, Bill Hart <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> What is the effective difference between releasing "under the terms of
> the GPLv2 or (at your option) any later version" and releasing it
> under GPLv3? Is it just this DRM business? Do we only care about that
GPLv2 and GPLv3 are actually inco
On 9/23/07, Joel B. Mohler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On Sunday 23 September 2007 15:46, William Stein wrote:
> > However, in the COPYING file for Sage itself, I wrote: "All original
> > SAGE code is distributed under the terms of the GNU General Public
> > License *Version 2*."
> >
> > Just
What is the effective difference between releasing "under the terms of
the GPLv2 or (at your option) any later version" and releasing it
under GPLv3? Is it just this DRM business? Do we only care about that
on principle (i.e. we disagree with the FSF on this one) or is there
something in SAGE that
On Sunday 23 September 2007 15:46, William Stein wrote:
> However, in the COPYING file for Sage itself, I wrote: "All original
> SAGE code is distributed under the terms of the GNU General Public
> License *Version 2*."
>
> Just out of curiosity, would anybody be angry if I were to remove the
> w
On 9/23/07, William Stein <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On 9/23/07, Jason Martin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Some thoughts:
> >
> > 1. I've been doing some performance comparisons on GMP 4.2.2 with the
> > patches that Sage uses, and I haven't seen any remarkable differences
> > between 4.2.2
William Stein wrote:
>
> I think GMP is not going to change to LGPLv2 or greater; switching
> from LGPLv2 or greater to LGPLv3 is the one and only new "big feature"
> of GMP 4.2.2 (see the release notes).
>
> Also -- much more importantly, the copyright owners of GMP
> are the Free Software Fou
On 9/23/07, David Joyner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> GAP is GPLv2. I will ask gap-dev about changing that to "GPLv2 or
> later (at your preference)" .
Fortunately this might not be necessary anymore. See below.
I searched through the Gap distribution, and as far as I can tell
the only mention
On 9/23/07, David Joyner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > So the only problem would be software that specifically says "GPL
> > version *2*". For the Sage source code itself, we always just write
> >
> >
> > # Distributed under the terms of the GNU General Public License (GPL)
> >
> > except in th
On 9/23/07, William Stein <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On 9/23/07, Jason Martin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Some thoughts:
> >
> > 1. I've been doing some performance comparisons on GMP 4.2.2 with the
> > patches that Sage uses, and I haven't seen any remarkable differences
> > between 4.2.2
> > >> sage: Ribbon([[2,3],[1,4,5]]).is_standard()
> > >> False
> >
> > >> sage: SkewTableau([[None, 2], [1, 3]]).is_standard()
> > >> False
> >
>
> I got the exact same two doctest failures with Fedora Core 7 on PPC 32
> Linux. Everything else passes.
Hi,
I was able to figure this out:
1
On 9/23/07, William Stein <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On 9/23/07, Jason Martin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Some thoughts:
> >
> > 1. I've been doing some performance comparisons on GMP 4.2.2 with the
> > patches that Sage uses, and I haven't seen any remarkable differences
> > between 4.2.2
On 9/23/07, Jason Martin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Some thoughts:
>
> 1. I've been doing some performance comparisons on GMP 4.2.2 with the
> patches that Sage uses, and I haven't seen any remarkable differences
> between 4.2.2 and 4.2.1. Granted, I have only tested Linux on
> AMD64/Intel64 a
On 9/23/07, cwitty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Here's one (heavily biased) example:
>
> sage: sum([sqrt(AA(i)) for i in range(1, 1000)])
> [21065.833110879048 .. 21065.833110879056]
>
> I'm pretty sure that doing computations with this number algebraically
> requires dealing with polynomials of d
Some thoughts:
1. I've been doing some performance comparisons on GMP 4.2.2 with the
patches that Sage uses, and I haven't seen any remarkable differences
between 4.2.2 and 4.2.1. Granted, I have only tested Linux on
AMD64/Intel64 and OS X on Intel64. Perhaps some other platforms have
a greate
On 9/23/07, Mike Hansen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> It seems odd that closed source software could use GMP under the
> LGPLv3, but that a GPLv2 project could not. How tightly integrated is
> the GMP stuff? Aren't we pretty much just using it as a library?
We are just using it as a library. Th
I have added a trac ticket (#740) for this, which I intend to do over
the next couple of days:
Implement standard transformations for elliptic curves & points
similar to pari's ellchangecurve()/ellchangepoint() with the following
functionality, to apply to class EllipticCurve?_generic and class
E
It seems odd that closed source software could use GMP under the
LGPLv3, but that a GPLv2 project could not. How tightly integrated is
the GMP stuff? Aren't we pretty much just using it as a library?
--Mike
On 9/23/07, David Joyner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On 9/23/07, William Stein <[EMA
On 9/23/07, William Stein <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> Michael Abshoff pointed out to me that GMP 4.2.2 has been released!
> Very exciting. The
> release notes list exactly one new feature:
>
> From http://gmplib.org/gmp4.2.html
>
> New features of GMP 4.2.2
> * License is now LGPL
On Sep 23, 2007, at 1:41 PM, William Stein wrote:
>> http://gplv3.fsf.org/dd3-faq
>> which has a nice matrix showing what is legal to combine.
>
> This table very clearly says that a GPL v2 project cannot link in an
> LGPL v3 library.
> We will thus not be upgrading the Sage GMP package to 4.2.2
Hi,
Michael Abshoff pointed out to me that GMP 4.2.2 has been released!
Very exciting. The
release notes list exactly one new feature:
>From http://gmplib.org/gmp4.2.html
New features of GMP 4.2.2
* License is now LGPL version 3.
Bugs:
...
The obvious question is whether the _current_
I made a similar message (on kubuntu) go away by editing
/etc/mercurial/hgrc.d/hgext.rc
putting a # (comment) at the start of the line which mentioned
themissing package.
John
On 9/23/07, cwitty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On Sep 20, 11:46 am, Jason Grout <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > 1. W
On Sep 22, 7:16 pm, Jaap Spies <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Mike Hansen wrote:
> > If it's not too much trouble, could you verify that the source of
> > SkewTableau.is_standard is the following:
>
> > t = self
> > #Check to make sure that it is filled with 1...size
> > w
Hello,
I will do a 15 minute talk about trac and the Sage development
process. I figured that because
a) not everybody will be there
b) I might miss some issues and will probably be completely wrong on
others
c) we might not have a lot of time after to discuss the issues
it would be a good idea
On Sep 20, 11:46 am, Jason Grout <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 1. When I make changes to, say, devel/sage-branch/sage/graphs/graph.py,
> I don't see those changes available in SAGE. For example, I added a
> function to the Graph class, but I couldn't access that function when I
> started up SAGE.
On Sep 20, 6:35 am, Bill Hart <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 20 Sep, 06:39, Robert Bradshaw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>
> > Carl Witty did an implementation of the Algebraic Reals by letting
> > every element be specified by a polynomial and an interval containing
> > a single root. I've been
Maybe I'm just not patient enough. WIth a fresh 2.8.5 install from
source it gets past this point, and the previously "stuck" test of
constructions takes 32s on my machine. The difference with the
-verbose option switched on is that there is enough output not to get
bored by 32s of inactivity...
46 matches
Mail list logo
