> I apologize for the way I presented this. No offense was intended for
> anybody. I won't follow up in sage-flame, because it was never my
> intention to start a flame (I don't think this discussion has turned
> into a flame yet, neither by me or others, but I can see it has the
> potential to be
2009/5/9 Rob Beezer :
>
> Gonzalo,
>
> I don't think you have anything to apologize for relative to your
> participation in this thread. To the contrary, your key questions
> halfway through (that ended up in some other thread), I thought did a
> perfect job of capturing the debate.
>
> Your Engl
Gonzalo,
I don't think you have anything to apologize for relative to your
participation in this thread. To the contrary, your key questions
halfway through (that ended up in some other thread), I thought did a
perfect job of capturing the debate.
Your English is great and your Latin is even be
On Fri, May 8, 2009 at 12:19 AM, Brian Granger wrote:
>
>> Indeed... but the OP claimed that a jpeg couldn't be a derived work of
>> gimp because it's not a C++ program, which is a non sequitur.
>
> Do you actually think a JPEG is a derived for of GIMP or do you
> disagree with how I was arguing?
John Cremona wrote:
> 2009/5/8 Ondrej Certik :
>> On Fri, May 8, 2009 at 10:06 AM, Jaap Spies wrote:
>>> Ondrej Certik wrote:
On Fri, May 8, 2009 at 9:15 AM, John Cremona
wrote:
> I had rather assumed that the new list was never intended to be read
> by anyone anyway
2009/5/8 Ondrej Certik :
>
> On Fri, May 8, 2009 at 10:06 AM, Jaap Spies wrote:
>>
>> Ondrej Certik wrote:
>>> On Fri, May 8, 2009 at 9:15 AM, John Cremona wrote:
>>
I had rather assumed that the new list was never intended to be read
by anyone anyway
>>>
>>> Not sure what you mean
On Fri, May 8, 2009 at 10:06 AM, Jaap Spies wrote:
>
> Ondrej Certik wrote:
>> On Fri, May 8, 2009 at 9:15 AM, John Cremona wrote:
>
>>> I had rather assumed that the new list was never intended to be read
>>> by anyone anyway
>>
>> Not sure what you mean. I thought William has asked to move
Ondrej Certik wrote:
> On Fri, May 8, 2009 at 9:15 AM, John Cremona wrote:
>> I had rather assumed that the new list was never intended to be read
>> by anyone anyway
>
> Not sure what you mean. I thought William has asked to move the
> discussion there, but I hope he didn't mean that noone
On Fri, May 8, 2009 at 9:15 AM, John Cremona wrote:
>
> 2009/5/8 William Stein :
>>
I've just set the sage-flame list to be completely unmoderated, which
seems appropriate for sage-flame.
>>>
>>> I hope it will not be spammed. If the sympy list was not moderated,
>>> it'd be full of sp
2009/5/8 William Stein :
>
>>> I've just set the sage-flame list to be completely unmoderated, which
>>> seems appropriate for sage-flame.
>>
>> I hope it will not be spammed. If the sympy list was not moderated,
>> it'd be full of spam already.
>
> Good point. That usually only happens after a
>> I've just set the sage-flame list to be completely unmoderated, which
>> seems appropriate for sage-flame.
>
> I hope it will not be spammed. If the sympy list was not moderated,
> it'd be full of spam already.
Good point. That usually only happens after a list has been around
a while and ha
On Fri, May 8, 2009 at 7:58 AM, William Stein wrote:
>
> On Fri, May 8, 2009 at 6:25 AM, Ondrej Certik wrote:
>>
>> On Thu, May 7, 2009 at 9:42 PM, William Stein wrote:
>>>
>>> On Thu, May 7, 2009 at 8:19 PM, Brian Granger
>>> wrote:
Most of all, everyone, please go read the damn GPL!
>>
On Fri, May 8, 2009 at 6:25 AM, Ondrej Certik wrote:
>
> On Thu, May 7, 2009 at 9:42 PM, William Stein wrote:
>>
>> On Thu, May 7, 2009 at 8:19 PM, Brian Granger
>> wrote:
>>> Most of all, everyone, please go read the damn GPL!
>>>
>>> Brian
>>
>> Though very interesting to me personally, this
On Thu, May 7, 2009 at 9:42 PM, William Stein wrote:
>
> On Thu, May 7, 2009 at 8:19 PM, Brian Granger wrote:
>>
>>> Indeed... but the OP claimed that a jpeg couldn't be a derived work of
>>> gimp because it's not a C++ program, which is a non sequitur.
>>
>> Do you actually think a JPEG is a de
On May 6, 10:05 pm, Robert Bradshaw
wrote:
> I think it depends on the context
Yeahr, I think so too, and that's the reason why i think we will never
get an answer based on technical facts and we could discuss forever on
this subject. The jurisdictional system isn't only based on technical
On Thu, May 7, 2009 at 8:19 PM, Brian Granger wrote:
>
>> Indeed... but the OP claimed that a jpeg couldn't be a derived work of
>> gimp because it's not a C++ program, which is a non sequitur.
>
> Do you actually think a JPEG is a derived for of GIMP or do you
> disagree with how I was arguing?
On May 7, 2009, at 8:53 PM, kcrisman wrote:
>
>>
>> Most of all, everyone, please go read the damn GPL!
>
> Out of curiosity, does anyone on the list actually know a lawyer at
> FSF? I wouldn't be surprised if someone does with all the Boston
> connections.
I think (hope) that the restrictions
>
> Most of all, everyone, please go read the damn GPL!
Out of curiosity, does anyone on the list actually know a lawyer at
FSF? I wouldn't be surprised if someone does with all the Boston
connections.
If so, getting even a small piece of FSF's "official" position,
without all the IANAL stuff,
> Indeed... but the OP claimed that a jpeg couldn't be a derived work of
> gimp because it's not a C++ program, which is a non sequitur.
Do you actually think a JPEG is a derived for of GIMP or do you
disagree with how I was arguing? If you merely disagree with my
argument, please don't misquote
On Thu, May 7, 2009 at 10:45 PM, Robert Dodier wrote:
> Gonzalo Tornaria wrote:
>> Auch... then, if I take GIMP source code, and carefully translate it
>> 100% into, say... lisp, then the resulting work is not a C++ program,
>> and therefore not a derived work.
>
> Careful. I'm pretty sure a tran
Gonzalo Tornaria wrote:
> Auch... then, if I take GIMP source code, and carefully translate it
> 100% into, say... lisp, then the resulting work is not a C++ program,
> and therefore not a derived work.
Careful. I'm pretty sure a translation (be it from natural
language or computer language) is
Brian Granger wrote:
> Are you arguing that jpeg's produced by GIMP are all GPL'd?
No.
> I agree that it is definitely possible to release "non-programs", such
> as JPEGs, under the GPL.
OK, I misunderstood. I thought you were claiming just the opposite.
Robert Dodier
--~--~-~--~
On Thu, May 7, 2009 at 3:51 PM, Gonzalo Tornaria
wrote:
>
> Gee... is "Sage" a trademark?
Yes, "Sage" is a trademark. It's not mine though. It is explicitly
listed here:
http://www.sagenorthamerica.com/copyright_trademarks/
Another company changed their name to Sage software and write on th
> Gee... is "Sage" a trademark?
>
> Besides, I don't think a trademark is that strong... E.g. "firefox" is
> a trademark of mozilla. Debian doesn't want to be bound by the terms
> of use of said trademark, so the rename the program to "iceweasel".
> All visible occurrences of the name "firefox" a
Gee... is "Sage" a trademark?
Besides, I don't think a trademark is that strong... E.g. "firefox" is
a trademark of mozilla. Debian doesn't want to be bound by the terms
of use of said trademark, so the rename the program to "iceweasel".
All visible occurrences of the name "firefox" are replaced
On Thu, May 7, 2009 at 5:41 PM, Brian Granger wrote:
> * The JPEG stands on its own and can be "used" independently of GIMP.
Beware... copyright law is more about "copying" and "distribution",
than about "use". Besides, when I post a notebook, or publish a sage
script in a book, I'm not using Sa
>> sage-ultralight must have the same name as sage. Then you get into
>> copyright/trademark related issues (the name "sage" is already taken).
>> Just the same I could create a GUI toolkit named "Qt" that was also
>> released under the SACL license, but you can guess what would happen.
>
> Inco
On Thu, May 7, 2009 at 1:20 PM, Brian Granger wrote:
> He, he. For the above script to run in sage-ultralight,
> sage-ultralight must have the same name as sage. Then you get into
> copyright/trademark related issues (the name "sage" is already taken).
> Just the same I could create a GUI too
2009/5/7 Brian Granger :
>
>>> I disagree. A jpeg or .doc file is not source code in any sense of
>>> the word, thus the GPL is completely irrelevant (I think we agree on
>>> that).
>>
>> That simply isn't so. To quote the GPL:
>> "This License applies to any program or other work ..."
>> "The "P
On Thu, May 7, 2009 at 1:54 PM, Alfredo Portes wrote:
>
> On Thu, May 7, 2009 at 4:23 PM, William Stein wrote:
>
>> That FAQ entry which you partially quoted concludes with "A
>> consequence is that if you choose to use GPL'd Perl modules or Java
>> classes in your program, you must release the
On Thu, May 7, 2009 at 4:23 PM, William Stein wrote:
> That FAQ entry which you partially quoted concludes with "A
> consequence is that if you choose to use GPL'd Perl modules or Java
> classes in your program, you must release the program in a
> GPL-compatible way, regardless of the license us
>> I disagree. A jpeg or .doc file is not source code in any sense of
>> the word, thus the GPL is completely irrelevant (I think we agree on
>> that).
>
> That simply isn't so. To quote the GPL:
> "This License applies to any program or other work ..."
> "The "Program", below, refers to any such
On Thu, May 7, 2009 at 11:52 AM, Tom Boothby wrote:
> I just found this thread, sorry for weighing in late.
>
> Note: this is a light-hearted response to a topic which I consider
> very grave. It's been claimed that the script
>
> from sage import Integer
> print Integer(2)+Integer(2)
>
> must b
> Note: this is a light-hearted response to a topic which I consider
> very grave. It's been claimed that the script
>
> from sage import Integer
> print Integer(2)+Integer(2)
>
> must be GPL'd. I claim that the above is a sage-ultralight script.
> I've attached an independent implementation of
I just found this thread, sorry for weighing in late.
Note: this is a light-hearted response to a topic which I consider
very grave. It's been claimed that the script
from sage import Integer
print Integer(2)+Integer(2)
must be GPL'd. I claim that the above is a sage-ultralight script.
I've a
On May 5, 8:05 pm, Brian Granger wrote:
> > 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 code in any sense of
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
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.)
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
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
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
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.)
>
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
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)
>>
>> }}}
>
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
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
--~
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?
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
On Tue, May 5, 2009 at 11:41 PM, William Stein wrote:
>
> On Tue, May 5, 2009 at 11:30 PM, Brian Granger
> wrote:
>> Now that I think about it, how would I release a worksheet under the
>> GPL. The usual way is to add:
>>
>> This program is free software: you can redistribute it and/or modify
On May 5, 2009, at 11:12 PM, William Stein wrote:
>
> On Tue, May 5, 2009 at 10:41 PM, Robert Bradshaw
> wrote:
>>
>> On May 5, 2009, at 9:23 PM, Brian Granger wrote:
>>
>>> Michael,
>>>
>>> Thank you for bringing up this issue as it does clarify some
>>> aspect of
>>> Sage derived code and l
OK, Brian, you beat me to it, I was going to post this link again in
an effort to prolong this thread. ;-)
This link points to a tutorial about how to use Sage to do group
theory. PDF and *.sws formats. Lots of text, but significant
sections of Sage code, including an @interact. Is this a "te
On Tue, May 5, 2009 at 11:45 PM, mabshoff wrote:
>
>
>
> On May 5, 11:34 pm, Brian Granger wrote:
>> > Licensing discussions just suck and are a waste of time. Sigh
>>
>> Yes, I fully a agree with youexcept when people learn new things
>> about the GPL. I think some important things ha
On May 5, 11:34 pm, Brian Granger wrote:
> > Licensing discussions just suck and are a waste of time. Sigh
>
> Yes, I fully a agree with youexcept when people learn new things
> about the GPL. I think some important things have come out of this
> discussion:
>
> * A notebook/Worksheet
On Tue, May 5, 2009 at 11:30 PM, Brian Granger wrote:
>
> At the beginning of this thread, someone posted a link to the Sage worksheet:
>
> http://abstract.ups.edu/sage-aata.html
>
> That is 1) being publicly distributed and 2) is not being released
> under the GPL.
>
> Plus, anyone can create an
> Licensing discussions just suck and are a waste of time. Sigh
Yes, I fully a agree with youexcept when people learn new things
about the GPL. I think some important things have come out of this
discussion:
* A notebook/Worksheet is source code and can potentially be a
derivative work
At the beginning of this thread, someone posted a link to the Sage worksheet:
http://abstract.ups.edu/sage-aata.html
That is 1) being publicly distributed and 2) is not being released
under the GPL.
Plus, anyone can create an account on the public Sage notebook
servers, so basically any workshe
On Tue, May 5, 2009 at 11:12 PM, Brian Granger wrote:
>> No, definitely not. But if you post the notebooks publicly and they make
>> use
>> of the sage library, then they have to be GPL'd.
>
> Great, this is what I thought.
> But, then some (or even many) Sage
> users and devs are in violatio
On Tue, May 5, 2009 at 10:41 PM, Robert Bradshaw
wrote:
>
> On May 5, 2009, at 9:23 PM, Brian Granger wrote:
>
>> Michael,
>>
>> Thank you for bringing up this issue as it does clarify some aspect of
>> Sage derived code and licensing. But, in my mind, the "sage as
>> interpreter" aspect is a sm
William,
Thanks for your replies. I mostly want to know what the consensus
interpretation of these issues is amongst the Sage devs. Slowly, I am
getting a picture of what this consensus looks like.
> Publicly distributed code using GPL'd library must be GPL'd.
Great, to first order that is my
On May 5, 10:50 pm, 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
If you were to print out the source code and distribute it in a book,
it should not change the conclusions of copyright law. People tend to
get very caught up in technical theories, and they often view the law
the way they view software, but a judge will do a basic "sanity
check". If you publish
On Tue, May 5, 2009 at 10:41 PM, Robert Bradshaw
wrote:
>
> On May 5, 2009, at 9:23 PM, Brian Granger wrote:
>
>> Michael,
>>
>> Thank you for bringing up this issue as it does clarify some aspect of
>> Sage derived code and licensing. But, in my mind, the "sage as
>> interpreter" aspect is a sm
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 GPL?
>
> Here is a bit of background...
>
> At a co
On May 5, 2009, at 9:23 PM, Brian Granger wrote:
> Michael,
>
> Thank you for bringing up this issue as it does clarify some aspect of
> Sage derived code and licensing. But, in my mind, the "sage as
> interpreter" aspect is a small perturbation on top of the zero-order:
>
> Sage = Python + GPL
> It is interesting I think that of the two interpretations of the GPL
> represented by the many people in this thread, it seems that
> there are those in the "Rosen camp" as described in
> http://www.linuxjournal.com/article/6366, http://www.rosenlaw.com/lj19.htm
> (Rosen is general counsel of OS
On Wed, May 6, 2009 at 12:23 AM, Brian Granger wrote:
>
> Michael,
>
> Thank you for bringing up this issue as it does clarify some aspect of
> Sage derived code and licensing. But, in my mind, the "sage as
> interpreter" aspect is a small perturbation on top of the zero-order:
>
> Sage = Python
Rob Beezer wrote:
> Your script was your creative work (well, not very creative). You
> could have copied it onto CD's and sold those for whatever price you
> could fetch. I could not buy a CD from you and make copies to sell -
> that would violate your copyright. You have not modified Sage, yo
Michael,
Thank you for bringing up this issue as it does clarify some aspect of
Sage derived code and licensing. But, in my mind, the "sage as
interpreter" aspect is a small perturbation on top of the zero-order:
Sage = Python + GPL libraries
That is, for the most part, I view the interpreter
On Tue, May 5, 2009 at 10:13 PM, Brian Granger wrote:
>
...
>
>> In general, to function as a derived work requires that you modify a
>> certain number of
>> lines in the codebase of the software. I think the GPL FAQ has about 30-50
>> (I don't remember exactly). So if Rob had about 50 lines fr
This is the relevant entry from the GPL FAQ:
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#IfInterpreterIsGPL
To quote:
[quote]
If a programming language interpreter is released under the GPL, does
that mean programs written to be interpreted by it must be under GPL-
compatible licenses?
When the in
On Tue, May 5, 2009 at 7:56 PM, Gonzalo Tornaria
wrote:
>
> On Tue, May 5, 2009 at 11:48 PM, Brian Granger
> wrote:
>> This is all true. But modifying an original work is not the only way
>> of creating a derived work. Ondrej's script *is* a derived work under
>> the definition that the FSF g
On Tue, May 5, 2009 at 10:48 PM, Brian Granger wrote:
>
>> When you create something (book, photo, program) you automatically
>> have a copyright in/on that work.
>
> Yep.
>
>> You may control the creation of
>> copies. With a GPL/GFDL license you explicitly grant others further
>> freedoms - so
On Tue, May 5, 2009 at 11:48 PM, Brian Granger wrote:
> This is all true. But modifying an original work is not the only way
> of creating a derived work. Ondrej's script *is* a derived work under
> the definition that the FSF gives (when run, it dynamically links to
> Sage).
Well... since Ond
> When you create something (book, photo, program) you automatically
> have a copyright in/on that work.
Yep.
> You may control the creation of
> copies. With a GPL/GFDL license you explicitly grant others further
> freedoms - someone may make unlimited copies. They may make
> modifications.
> I claim this is still silly.
Then I think you think the GPL is silly and I agree with you :-)
> Did you actually load Sage to write the
> above two lines? Or did you just type two lines in your email program?
> (My guess is the latter). So why in the world would the license for
> Sage affec
Ondrej,
Caveat: my understanding of US copyright law and software licenses.
When you create something (book, photo, program) you automatically
have a copyright in/on that work. You may control the creation of
copies. With a GPL/GFDL license you explicitly grant others further
freedoms - someon
> Obviously everyone understands this differently. But I thought that if
> I have a script A:
>
> ---
> from sage.all import x
> print x**2
> ---
>
> Then my script has to be GPL, because it is dynamically loading a GPL
> library (without any runtime exception) *and* my script doesn't work
Ondrej Certik wrote:
> On Tue, May 5, 2009 at 7:18 PM, Brian Granger wrote:
>>> The runtime exception is to allow the use of the gcc runtime, which is
>>> a library gcc links to your code when you need to produce a program
>>> which runs. AFAICT, if you replaced the gcc runtime with something
>>>
On Tue, May 5, 2009 at 7:18 PM, Brian Granger wrote:
>
>> The runtime exception is to allow the use of the gcc runtime, which is
>> a library gcc links to your code when you need to produce a program
>> which runs. AFAICT, if you replaced the gcc runtime with something
>> else, or you just used t
> The runtime exception is to allow the use of the gcc runtime, which is
> a library gcc links to your code when you need to produce a program
> which runs. AFAICT, if you replaced the gcc runtime with something
> else, or you just used the object files compiled by gcc (no linking),
> you wouldn't
On Tue, May 5, 2009 at 11:05 PM, Brian Granger wrote:
> The FSF asserts that if I develop code that merely links to GPL
> software (static or dynamic), my code is bound by the GPL. I don't
> have to modify the GPL software and I don't even have to distribute
> it.
When you compile and link agai
> Sage functions in a simailr way that GIMP does. If I create an image in
> GIMP from scratch then I own the copyright to that image. The license of GIMP,
> which functions as an editor, a viewer, has it's own plugins for
> postprocessing, ...
> have nothing to do with it.
GIMP is written in a p
On Tue, May 5, 2009 at 10:56 PM, Brian Granger wrote:
>> How is it a derived work of Sage? That argument seems to lead to the
>> conclusion that my C code would be considered a derived work of GCC.
>
> Your GCC compiled code is a derived work and that (in my
> understanding) is why there exists
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 code in any sense of
the word, thus the GPL is completely irrele
> How is it a derived work of Sage? That argument seems to lead to the
> conclusion that my C code would be considered a derived work of GCC.
Your GCC compiled code is a derived work and that (in my
understanding) is why there exists the so called "runtime exception"
to the GPL that covers this
On May 5, 2009, at 6:33 PM, Brian Granger wrote:
>> The Sage worksheet at
>>
>> http://abstract.ups.edu/sage-aata.html
>>
>> contains Sage code that was not written in a notebook. While that
>> could be obvious if you actually looked at the file, technically I
>> think there is no way to prove j
On Tue, May 5, 2009 at 9:33 PM, Brian Granger wrote:
>
>> The Sage worksheet at
>>
>> http://abstract.ups.edu/sage-aata.html
>>
>> contains Sage code that was not written in a notebook. While that
>> could be obvious if you actually looked at the file, technically I
>> think there is no way to p
Brian Granger wrote:
>> The Sage worksheet at
>>
>> http://abstract.ups.edu/sage-aata.html
>>
>> contains Sage code that was not written in a notebook. While that
>> could be obvious if you actually looked at the file, technically I
>> think there is no way to prove just where I wrote it - notebo
> The Sage worksheet at
>
> http://abstract.ups.edu/sage-aata.html
>
> contains Sage code that was not written in a notebook. While that
> could be obvious if you actually looked at the file, technically I
> think there is no way to prove just where I wrote it - notebook or
> not.
Regardless of
On Tue, May 5, 2009 at 7:32 PM, Brian Granger wrote:
>
>>> At a conference in the last year, one of the Sage developers was asked
>>> this question, and their answer was...
>>>
>>> "You can do whatever you want with your code, you don't have to
>>> release it under the GPL"
>
>> I'm pretty sure t
On May 5, 3:25 pm, Brian Granger wrote:
> IF I write code in a Sage notebook, AND I redistribute the code, do I
> need to release my code under the GPL?
The Sage worksheet at
http://abstract.ups.edu/sage-aata.html
contains Sage code that was not written in a notebook. While that
could be obv
1 - 100 of 102 matches
Mail list logo
