On 2/26/11 10:52 AM, David Kirkby wrote:
On 26 February 2011 16:34, Jason Grout wrote:
On 2/26/11 9:20 AM, David Kirkby wrote:
On 26 February 2011 13:57, Jeroen Demeyerwrote:
At least Mercurial and PARI are GPLv2+. But for example R is GPLv2 only.
Are you sure about Mercurial and Pa
On 26 February 2011 16:34, Jason Grout wrote:
> On 2/26/11 9:20 AM, David Kirkby wrote:
>>
>> On 26 February 2011 13:57, Jeroen Demeyer wrote:
>>> At least Mercurial and PARI are GPLv2+. But for example R is GPLv2 only.
>>
>> Are you sure about Mercurial and Pari?
>>
>> http://mercurial.selenic
On 2/26/11 9:20 AM, David Kirkby wrote:
On 26 February 2011 13:57, Jeroen Demeyer wrote:
On 2011-02-26 14:30, David Kirkby wrote:
On 26 February 2011 12:45, David Joyner wrote:
On Sat, Feb 26, 2011 at 7:19 AM, David Kirkby wrote:
So it seems to me we need to "upgrade" to GPL 3, but then
On 10 nov, 10:32, Jeroen Demeyer wrote:
> I'm not totally convinced though that it's okay to use GPLv3+ spkgs in
> Sage (the question boils down to: is cvxopt part of Sage or does Sage
> simply call cvxopt as external program).
>
> Jeroen.
Imagine the Sage library depended on GPLv3 code. Then by
