[sage-devel] Re: Clarification of Sage and GPL

On Wed, May 6, 2009 at 4:05 AM, Brian Granger wrote: > > Brian, > >> A sage worksheet is no more a derived work of Sage than a jpeg would >> be a derived work of Photoshop/GIMP or a .doc file would be a derived >> work of MS Office or OpenOffice. > > I disagree.  A jpeg or .doc file is not source

[sage-devel] Re: strange rounding with SymbolicArithmetic

On Wed, May 6, 2009 at 6:28 PM, Carl Witty wrote: > > On Wed, May 6, 2009 at 2:16 PM, Yann wrote: >> or print the error digit 4.?1 (expicit is better than implicit, >> etc :) ) > > Well, again this was an explicit decision; the thinking was that if > somebody saw 1.234567? they might be able to

[sage-devel] Re: Clarification of Sage and GPL

Em Qua, 2009-05-06 às 00:29 -0700, William Stein escreveu: > On Tue, May 5, 2009 at 11:57 PM, Robert Bradshaw > wrote: > > What about > > publishing (collections of) worksheets under the CC license? Code > > snippets in books? Are your books GPL compatible? (Maybe you could > > claim fair use.)

[sage-devel] Is the pre-built clisp.spkg for Solaris SPARC available? If so where?

Michael said he would post a pre-built clisp for Solaris, as it appears there are serious issues with clisp with any recent compiler for Solaris. Is is available, and if so where can I find it? Sorry if this has been answered in another thread. The discussions were originally on a thread about

[sage-devel] Re: strange rounding with SymbolicArithmetic

Nick Alexander wrote: >> 1.234567? > > +1 > >> 1.234567?1 is more > > -1 I vote the same as Nick. Jason --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ To post to this group, send email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to sage-devel-unsubscr.

[sage-devel] Re: strange rounding with SymbolicArithmetic

On May 6, 2009, at 6:38 PM, Nick Alexander wrote: > >> 1.234567? > > +1 > >> 1.234567?1 is more > > -1 Agreed. - Robert --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ To post to this group, send email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to sage-de

[sage-devel] Re: Clarification of Sage and GPL

On May 6, 5:43 pm, Ivan Andrus wrote: > On May 6, 2009, at 12:09 AM, mabshoff wrote: > > > Note that any GPLed codebase like Singular or pari would also be viral > > to high level code and I cannot believe that this is the way the GPL > > is intended. Anything using readline, i.e. IPython, woul

[sage-devel] Re: Sage 4.0 plan

On May 6, 5:53 pm, William Stein wrote: > Hi, > > This is the plan for getting Sage-4.0 out.  Help in any way you can. > > Wed May 6: * mhansen (by 2am) -- patches/todo list so anybody can help. >            * robertwb will have reviewed david roe's >            * mabshoff provides bill with sy

[sage-devel] Re: sage patches to ghmm

On May 6, 2:16 pm, Tim Abbott wrote: > Hello, Hi Tim, > The ghmm developers have posted a 0.9rc1 release candidate on their > website: > > Good. > with the hopes of doing an actual release shortly (they said they were > doing it

[sage-devel] Re: strange rounding with SymbolicArithmetic

> 1.234567? +1 > 1.234567?1 is more -1 Nick --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ To post to this group, send email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to sage-devel-unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http:

[sage-devel] Re: strange rounding with SymbolicArithmetic

On Wed, May 6, 2009 at 2:16 PM, Yann wrote: > or print the error digit 4.?1 (expicit is better than implicit, > etc :) ) Well, again this was an explicit decision; the thinking was that if somebody saw 1.234567? they might be able to guess approximately what it means without reading the document

[sage-devel] Sage 4.0 plan

Hi, This is the plan for getting Sage-4.0 out. Help in any way you can. Wed May 6: * mhansen (by 2am) -- patches/todo list so anybody can help. * robertwb will have reviewed david roe's * mabshoff provides bill with symmetrica bug testcase * mabshoff fix libtool

[sage-devel] Re: Clarification of Sage and GPL

On May 6, 2009, at 12:09 AM, mabshoff wrote: > Note that any GPLed codebase like Singular or pari would also be viral > to high level code and I cannot believe that this is the way the GPL > is intended. Anything using readline, i.e. IPython, would be infected, > too, and that goes way too far IM

[sage-devel] #6000 [with patch, needs review] Sets enumerated by exploring a search space with a (lazy) tree or graph structure

Dear Sage and Sage-combinat developers, Patch of the day: #6000 ([with patch, needs review] Sets enumerated by exploring a search space with a (lazy) tree or graph structure That's rather trivial code (searches in a graph), but has lots of applications, and I ended up written it again

[sage-devel] Re: Clarification of Sage and GPL

On 05/06/2009 07:44 PM, Robert Bradshaw wrote: > On May 6, 2009, at 10:37 AM, Tim Lahey wrote: >> Doesn't both Maple and Mathematica make use of GMP? I thought they >> did. >> >> They aren't licensed under the GPL. > > GMP is LGPL, not GPL. If what Ralf said were correct (which it > isn't), t

[sage-devel] Re: Wrong answer in IntegerModRing.multiplicative_subgroups

OK. In that case I'll upload a fix for #5250 without addressing this issue, and just fudge the multiplicative_subgroups method so it returns the same wrong output it did before, so the doctest in congroup_gamma0 passes. Once we have a new abelian groups framework based on #5882, someone can then g

[sage-devel] Re: strange rounding with SymbolicArithmetic

On May 6, 11:04 pm, Carl Witty wrote: > On Wed, May 6, 2009 at 1:46 PM, Yann wrote: > >> In other words, > >> sage: RealIntervalField(4)(0, 1) > >> 1.? > >> prints as the interval [0 .. 2], rather than [-1 .. 1], because IMHO > >> it is useful to be able to know that an interval is nonnegative;

[sage-devel] sage patches to ghmm

Hello, The ghmm developers have posted a 0.9rc1 release candidate on their website: with the hopes of doing an actual release shortly (they said they were doing it last Friday, actually, but I think are delaying because I said I'd

[sage-devel] Re: Clarification of Sage and GPL

On May 6, 10:27 pm, Ralf Hemmecke wrote: > But if it comes to Ondrej's code, I think it is ridiculous if it were > forced to be under GPL. Just suppose Ondrej had mistyped his text so > that it looked like > > --- > from asge.all import x > print x**2 > --- > (Note it's asge not sage.) >

[sage-devel] Re: strange rounding with SymbolicArithmetic

On Wed, May 6, 2009 at 1:46 PM, Yann wrote: >> In other words, >> sage: RealIntervalField(4)(0, 1) >> 1.? >> prints as the interval [0 .. 2], rather than [-1 .. 1], because IMHO >> it is useful to be able to know that an interval is nonnegative; and >> we do this by always picking the result fart

[sage-devel] Re: strange rounding with SymbolicArithmetic

On May 6, 6:35 pm, Carl Witty wrote: > On Wed, May 6, 2009 at 2:20 AM, Yann wrote: > > > Just for the record, > > isn't the following a bug? > > > sage: p=RealIntervalField(4)(3.1) > > sage: p.str(style='brackets') > > '[3.00 .. 3.25]' > > sage: p > > 4.? > > It's a deliberate design decision.

[sage-devel] Re: Clarification of Sage and GPL

On 05/06/2009 06:47 PM, William Stein wrote: > On Wed, May 6, 2009 at 9:32 AM, Ralf Hemmecke wrote: >> On 05/06/2009 07:50 AM, William Stein wrote: >>> On Tue, May 5, 2009 at 3:25 PM, Brian Granger >>> wrote: Hi, I have a question about Sage and the GPL. Here is the main quest

[sage-devel] Re: Clarification of Sage and GPL

On May 6, 2009, at 11:01 AM, David Harvey wrote: > On May 6, 10:41 am, kcrisman wrote: > >> So is there any final consensus on this? Is the following Sage >> program automatically GPL? >> >> {{{ >> 2+2 >> >> }}} >> >> Or only in the following form? >> >> {{{ >> Integer(2)+Integer(2) >> >> }}} >

[sage-devel] Re: Wrong answer in IntegerModRing.multiplicative_subgroups

On Wed, May 6, 2009 at 12:13 PM, John Cremona wrote: > > 2009/5/6 William Stein : >> >> On Wed, May 6, 2009 at 11:33 AM, davidloeffler >> wrote: >>> >>> On May 6, 7.10pm, William Stein wrote: Crap.   Thanks for spotting this.  Fortunately this is used in only one place in Sage; this on

[sage-devel] Re: Wrong answer in IntegerModRing.multiplicative_subgroups

2009/5/6 William Stein : > > On Wed, May 6, 2009 at 11:33 AM, davidloeffler > wrote: >> >> On May 6, 7.10pm, William Stein wrote: >>>Crap.   Thanks for spotting this.  Fortunately this is used in only >>> one place in Sage; this one line in congroup_gamma0.py: >>> >>>       return [GammaH(N, H)

[sage-devel] Re: Wrong answer in IntegerModRing.multiplicative_subgroups

On Wed, May 6, 2009 at 11:33 AM, davidloeffler wrote: > > On May 6, 7.10pm, William Stein wrote: >>Crap.   Thanks for spotting this.  Fortunately this is used in only >> one place in Sage; this one line in congroup_gamma0.py: >> >>       return [GammaH(N, H) for H in R.multiplicative_subgroups()]

[sage-devel] Re: Wrong answer in IntegerModRing.multiplicative_subgroups

On May 6, 7.10pm, William Stein wrote: >Crap. Thanks for spotting this. Fortunately this is used in only > one place in Sage; this one line in congroup_gamma0.py: > > return [GammaH(N, H) for H in R.multiplicative_subgroups()] Yes, that was how I noticed this -- my fix for 5250 caused mu

[sage-devel] Re: Wrong answer in IntegerModRing.multiplicative_subgroups

Do we have a function which returns (Z/NZ)* as an abelian group? Should not be hard since you could use pari's znstar function. Then you'll just run into the less than perfect abelian group codewhich as far as I know does not have a function returning all subgroups of a group. John 2009/5/6

[sage-devel] Re: Wrong answer in IntegerModRing.multiplicative_subgroups

On Wed, May 6, 2009 at 10:58 AM, daveloeffler wrote: > > Just now I was doing some tinkering in sage.rings.integer_mod_ring > with the aim of fixing ticket #5250, where Sage wrongly claims that > (Z / 162Z)^* is non-cyclic when it is. That turned out to be easy to > fix, but in the process I disc

[sage-devel] Re: Clarification of Sage and GPL

On May 6, 10:41 am, kcrisman wrote: > So is there any final consensus on this?  Is the following Sage > program automatically GPL? > > {{{ > 2+2 > > }}} > > Or only in the following form? > > {{{ > Integer(2)+Integer(2) > > }}} > > Please no flames!  I only wanted to know if there was a consens

[sage-devel] Wrong answer in IntegerModRing.multiplicative_subgroups

Just now I was doing some tinkering in sage.rings.integer_mod_ring with the aim of fixing ticket #5250, where Sage wrongly claims that (Z / 162Z)^* is non-cyclic when it is. That turned out to be easy to fix, but in the process I discovered something more nasty: the method "multiplicative_subgroup

[sage-devel] Re: order of elements in the field

On Wed, May 6, 2009 at 8:39 AM, Nick Alexander wrote: > > > On 6-May-09, at 12:32 AM, Craig Citro wrote: > >> >>> Just out of curiosity, could you comment on my proposal that "order" >>> be removed, and replaced >>> by *only* additive_order and multiplicative_order?  I personally >>> never >>> us

[sage-devel] Re: Clarification of Sage and GPL

On May 6, 2009, at 10:37 AM, Tim Lahey wrote: > > Doesn't both Maple and Mathematica make use of GMP? I thought they > did. > > They aren't licensed under the GPL. GMP is LGPL, not GPL. If what Ralf said were correct (which it isn't), there would be no need for an LGPL at all. - Robert --~

[sage-devel] Re: Clarification of Sage and GPL

On Wed, May 6, 2009 at 10:37 AM, Tim Lahey wrote: > > > On May 6, 2009, at 12:05 PM, Vinzent Steinberg wrote: > >> >> On May 6, 4:41 pm, kcrisman wrote: >>> Wow, I really missed quite a thread. >>> >>> So is there any final consensus on this?  Is the following Sage >>> program automatically GPL?

[sage-devel] Re: Clarification of Sage and GPL

On May 6, 2009, at 12:05 PM, Vinzent Steinberg wrote: > > On May 6, 4:41 pm, kcrisman wrote: >> Wow, I really missed quite a thread. >> >> So is there any final consensus on this? Is the following Sage >> program automatically GPL? >> >> {{{ >> 2+2 >> >> }}} >> >> Or only in the following form

[sage-devel] Re: Clarification of Sage and GPL

On May 6, 4:41 pm, kcrisman wrote: > Wow, I really missed quite a thread. > > So is there any final consensus on this?  Is the following Sage > program automatically GPL? > > {{{ > 2+2 > > }}} > > Or only in the following form? > > {{{ > Integer(2)+Integer(2) > > }}} Technically, what's the diff

[sage-devel] Re: Clarification of Sage and GPL

On Wed, May 6, 2009 at 9:32 AM, Ralf Hemmecke wrote: > > On 05/06/2009 07:50 AM, William Stein wrote: >> On Tue, May 5, 2009 at 3:25 PM, Brian Granger >> wrote: >>> Hi, >>> >>> I have a question about Sage and the GPL.  Here is the main question.. >>> >>> IF I write code in a Sage notebook, AND

[sage-devel] Re: strange rounding with SymbolicArithmetic

On Wed, May 6, 2009 at 2:20 AM, Yann wrote: > > Just for the record, > isn't the following a bug? > > sage: p=RealIntervalField(4)(3.1) > sage: p.str(style='brackets') > '[3.00 .. 3.25]' > sage: p > 4.? It's a deliberate design decision. To quote from real_mpfi.pyx: When there are two

[sage-devel] Re: Clarification of Sage and GPL

On 05/06/2009 07:50 AM, William Stein wrote: > On Tue, May 5, 2009 at 3:25 PM, Brian Granger wrote: >> Hi, >> >> I have a question about Sage and the GPL. Here is the main question.. >> >> IF I write code in a Sage notebook, AND I redistribute the code, do I >> need to release my code under the

[sage-devel] Re: Sage and GPL for end user scripts (Re: Clarification of Sage and GPL)

On Wed, May 6, 2009 at 8:13 AM, Gonzalo Tornaria wrote: > I'm particularly interested in your (William) answer to this. > Dang, I was hoping to not have to respond to this post, but since you explicitly ask me I have no choice. > In some > of your posts seemed as if you were claiming that requi

[sage-devel] Re: Graph Theory latex(G), global name 'latex' is not

>> Just for the record, it's often easier to do: >> >> sage: latex.__module__ >> 'sage.misc.latex' > > That is very useful! Yep, that's why I thought I'd throw it out there. Nick --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ To post to this group, send email to sage-devel@googlegroups.c

[sage-devel] Re: order of elements in the field

On 6-May-09, at 12:32 AM, Craig Citro wrote: > >> Just out of curiosity, could you comment on my proposal that "order" >> be removed, and replaced >> by *only* additive_order and multiplicative_order? I personally >> never >> use order anymore, since I'm >> always scared it is the wrong order

[sage-devel] Sage and GPL for end user scripts (Re: Clarification of Sage and GPL)

On Wed, May 6, 2009 at 4:29 AM, William Stein wrote: > On Tue, May 5, 2009 at 11:57 PM, Robert Bradshaw > wrote: >>  What about >> publishing (collections of) worksheets under the CC license? Code >> snippets in books? Are your books GPL compatible? (Maybe you could >> claim fair use.) >> >> I h

[sage-devel] Re: Clarification of Sage and GPL

On Wed, May 6, 2009 at 4:29 AM, William Stein wrote: > Suppose you spend three years implementing an algorithm as part of > Sage to compute X (say some Monsky-Washnitzer cohomology > computations).  Then somebody else writes and publishes a clever paper > that includes a several-page Sage program

[sage-devel] Re: Clarification of Sage and GPL

Wow, I really missed quite a thread. So is there any final consensus on this? Is the following Sage program automatically GPL? {{{ 2+2 }}} Or only in the following form? {{{ Integer(2)+Integer(2) }}} Please no flames! I only wanted to know if there was a consensus, I got sort of confused by

[sage-devel] Re: Wigner 3j, 6j, 9j, Clebsch-Gordan, Racah and Gaunt coefficients

Just to say that I have opened a ticket now with Dan's changes: http://trac.sagemath.org/sage_trac/ticket/5996 Jens --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ To post to this group, send email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to sage-devel-un

[sage-devel] Re: Clarification of Sage and GPL

On May 6, 8:58 am, Ondrej Certik wrote: > But honestly, I am always astonished by a thread like this and the the > wide range of opinions of what the (L)GPL actually allow you to or > not. Me too, wow. My opinion is, that if you write a sage script, it's just a script. You can do with it what yo

[sage-devel] Re: Fwd: FInally the link to download SAGElwlcd ISO!

People, here: http://sage.math.washington.edu/home/luciolastra/ I'll be uploading sagelwlcd images and the code sequences to create them. Please try the distro out to give me feedback (sagelw...@gmail) and help me make a better distro for everyone. Greetings, Lucio On 5 mayo, 23:58, Lucio La

[sage-devel] Re: Singular 3-1-0?

Hi Folks! Meanwhile I got a more detailed picture on the error. - I tested several versions of Singular (3-0-4 and 3-1-0-beta) built by Sage on four different machines. In *all* cases the error occured. - I tested Singular 3-1-0-beta built by myself and Singular 3-1-0 (official release) built i

[sage-devel] Re: Sage 3.4.2 released (and this time it is the final one)

Hi Michael, Building 3.4.2 from scratch breaks at R as follows: - gcc -std=gnu99 -I. -I../../src/include -I../../src/include -I/opt/sage-3.4.2/local/inlcude -DHAVE_CONFIG_H -fpic -I/opt/sage-3.4.2/local/include -L/opt/sage-3.4.2/local/lib/ -c maxcol.c -o maxcol

[sage-devel] Re: order of elements in the field

+1 though perhaps it should just be deprecated, along with a message saying to use multiplicative or additive order specifically. John 2009/5/6 Kwankyu : > > Hi William, > > I agree with you. +1 on removing the confusing "order". > > Kwankyu > > > --~--~-~--~~~---~--

[sage-devel] Re: New machine in the sage.math network

On May 6, 1:21 am, Peter Jeremy wrote: > On 2009-May-04 19:26:13 -0700, William Stein wrote: > > >Unfortunately, it seems that this does *NOT* mean that if you write a > >little C program, spawn 128 threads, and watch them run, then you can > >do 128 times what you would do with 1 thread.  You

[sage-devel] Re: Singular 3-1-0?

Hi! On May 6, 11:32 am, simon.k...@uni-jena.de wrote: > I will open a ticket. #5994, without a patch but with a suggestion of what to do. I first want to know what people think When I did singular.version(), I expected to get a tuple, say: sage: singular.version() (3,0,4,4) Would you expec

[sage-devel] Re: Singular 3-1-0?

On May 6, 2:32 am, simon.k...@uni-jena.de wrote: > Hi Michael, Hi Simon, > So, what Sage release, approximately? Well, given that Sage 3.4.2 is just out and that SD15 starts in 10 days I would say the next one. > > What does the docstring say? Is it supposed to work? This might be a > > bug

[sage-devel] Re: strange rounding with SymbolicArithmetic

On May 6, 2:35 am, Yann wrote: > It's trac #5942 Ok, it looked familiar. I have CCed Carl Witty on the ticket so he is aware of its existence, not that this implies that he has to fix it. Cheers, Michael --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ To post to this group, send email

[sage-devel] Re: strange rounding with SymbolicArithmetic

It's trac #5942 On May 6, 11:30 am, mabshoff wrote: > On May 6, 2:20 am, Yann wrote: > > > Just for the record, > > isn't the following a bug? > > It looks like one to me. > > > sage: p=RealIntervalField(4)(3.1) > > sage: p.str(style='brackets') > > '[3.00 .. 3.25]' > > sage: p > > 4.? > > The

[sage-devel] Re: Singular 3-1-0?

Hi Michael, On May 6, 11:28 am, mabshoff wrote: > The plan is that malb will update it when he is in Seattle before SD > 15. So, what Sage release, approximately? > What does the docstring say? Is it supposed to work? This might be a > bug ;). Are there bugs in Sage? I wasn't aware of it, sor

[sage-devel] Re: strange rounding with SymbolicArithmetic

On May 6, 2:20 am, Yann wrote: > Just for the record, > isn't the following a bug? It looks like one to me. > sage: p=RealIntervalField(4)(3.1) > sage: p.str(style='brackets') > '[3.00 .. 3.25]' > sage: p > 4.? The printing is a little odd, I would expect it to print 3.? cwitty? Cheers, Mi

[sage-devel] Re: Singular 3-1-0?

On May 6, 2:11 am, Simon King wrote: > Hi! > > When will Singular 3-1-0 be in Sage? The plan is that malb will update it when he is in Seattle before SD 15. > I have a program parts of which would not work with Singular 3-0-4. > So, how can I test the singular version? >   sage: singular.vers

[sage-devel] Re: strange rounding with SymbolicArithmetic

Just for the record, isn't the following a bug? sage: p=RealIntervalField(4)(3.1) sage: p.str(style='brackets') '[3.00 .. 3.25]' sage: p 4.? --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ To post to this group, send email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send

[sage-devel] Singular 3-1-0?

Hi! When will Singular 3-1-0 be in Sage? I have a program parts of which would not work with Singular 3-0-4. So, how can I test the singular version? sage: singular.version() fails with an error (both on sage.math and on my machine). Cheers, Simon --~--~-~--~~~--

[sage-devel] Re: Graph Theory latex(G), global name 'latex' is not

2009/5/6 Nick Alexander : > >> So apparently it's: >> >> from sage.misc.latex import latex > > Just for the record, it's often easier to do: > > sage: latex.__module__ > 'sage.misc.latex' That is very useful! I think I want to put sage: def whereis(thing): : return thing.__module__ :

[sage-devel] Re: Clarification of Sage and GPL

On May 6, 2009, at 12:29 AM, William Stein wrote: > On Tue, May 5, 2009 at 11:57 PM, Robert Bradshaw > wrote: >> What about >> publishing (collections of) worksheets under the CC license? Code >> snippets in books? Are your books GPL compatible? (Maybe you could >> claim fair use.) >> >> I have

[sage-devel] New machine in the sage.math network

On 2009-May-04 19:26:13 -0700, William Stein wrote: >Unfortunately, it seems that this does *NOT* mean that if you write a >little C program, spawn 128 threads, and watch them run, then you can >do 128 times what you would do with 1 thread. You still can only do 8 >times as much as with 1 thread.

[sage-devel] Re: order of elements in the field

Hi William, I agree with you. +1 on removing the confusing "order". Kwankyu --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ To post to this group, send email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to sage-devel-unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more optio

[sage-devel] Re: order of elements in the field

On May 6, 2009, at 12:32 AM, Craig Citro wrote: > >> Just out of curiosity, could you comment on my proposal that "order" >> be removed, and replaced >> by *only* additive_order and multiplicative_order? I personally >> never >> use order anymore, since I'm >> always scared it is the wrong ord

[sage-devel] Re: order of elements in the field

> Just out of curiosity, could you comment on my proposal that "order" > be removed, and replaced > by *only* additive_order and multiplicative_order?  I personally never > use order anymore, since I'm > always scared it is the wrong order. > I'm definitely +1 on this -- I always resort to the me

[sage-devel] Re: order of elements in the field

On Wed, May 6, 2009 at 12:20 AM, Kwankyu wrote: > > Hi William, > > All right. I thought F* is the natural group structure on "F". But F* is not equal to F. :-) > I want > to mention that additive order function is not even defined for > elements of finite fields in Magma. Just out of curiosi

[sage-devel] Re: Clarification of Sage and GPL

On Tue, May 5, 2009 at 11:57 PM, Robert Bradshaw wrote: > What about > publishing (collections of) worksheets under the CC license? Code > snippets in books? Are your books GPL compatible? (Maybe you could > claim fair use.) > > I have no trouble licensing code under the GPL, but I do think this

[sage-devel] Re: order of elements in the field

Hi William, All right. I thought F* is the natural group structure on "F". I want to mention that additive order function is not even defined for elements of finite fields in Magma. Kwankyu --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ To post to this group, send email to sage-devel@goo

[sage-devel] Re: Clarification of Sage and GPL

William Stein wrote: > On Tue, May 5, 2009 at 3:25 PM, Brian Granger wrote: >> * Is the code pure python or does it use the sage syntax? If the code >> uses the sage syntax, I think it must be released under the GPL. >> * Does the code being written actually use any GPL libraries (like the >> sa