Re: [sage-devel] Re: Sage library license

2014-02-24 Thread Julian Rüth
* Julian Rüth [2014-02-24 22:28:37 +0100]: > * Volker Braun [2014-02-24 13:15:25 -0800]: > > > Did you open a ticket for that? > Not yet. I do not have access to trac from this machine. I can create a > ticket later today. This is now http://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/15858 julian pgpB7EdVu_6kX

Re: [sage-devel] Re: Sage library license

2014-02-24 Thread William Stein
On Feb 24, 2014 2:15 PM, "Volker Braun" wrote: > > Is there actually somebody that replaces half a dozen libraries with almost decade-old versions and then uses that to run/develop Sage? It might have been possible back then, but it sure sounds extremely unlikely now. > > Nope, nobody does that n

Re: [sage-devel] Re: Sage library license

2014-02-24 Thread Volker Braun
Is there actually somebody that replaces half a dozen libraries with almost decade-old versions and then uses that to run/develop Sage? It might have been possible back then, but it sure sounds extremely unlikely now. On Monday, February 24, 2014 10:37:18 PM UTC+1, William wrote: > > On Mon, F

Re: [sage-devel] Re: Sage library license

2014-02-24 Thread William Stein
On Mon, Feb 24, 2014 at 12:20 PM, Volker Braun wrote: > IMHO GPLv3+ is the recommended license by the FSF. What exactly is there to > fix? The Sage developers decided when GPL3 was coming out (years ago) to keep the library GPLv2+ compatible, but the distribution has to be GPLv3 due to the FSF sw

Re: [sage-devel] Re: Sage library license

2014-02-24 Thread Julian Rüth
* Volker Braun [2014-02-24 13:15:25 -0800]: > Did you open a ticket for that? Not yet. I do not have access to trac from this machine. I can create a ticket later today. julian pgpjxOBzubZ8e.pgp Description: PGP signature

Re: [sage-devel] Re: Sage library license

2014-02-24 Thread Volker Braun
Did you open a ticket for that? On Monday, February 24, 2014 9:46:38 PM UTC+1, Julian Rüth wrote: > > You're right. But there are actually a few: > > plot/plot3d/transform.pyx > combinat/words/words.py > combinat/words/word_options.py > combinat/words/word_infinite_datatypes.py > combinat/wo

Re: [sage-devel] Re: Sage library license

2014-02-24 Thread Volker Braun
On Monday, February 24, 2014 8:34:25 PM UTC+1, William wrote: > > However, there is Cython code in the core library that relies on GSL, > and GSL is GPLv3+.I don't think this forces the Sage library to be > GPLv3+, since there is also a GPLv2+ version of GSL with the *same > API*, which we u

Re: [sage-devel] Re: Sage library license

2014-02-24 Thread Julian Rüth
* Jeroen Demeyer [2014-02-24 21:37:23 +0100]: > On 2014-02-24 21:32, Julian Rüth wrote: > >In many places we have GPLv2 (without the +) > I hope not, that would be a big problem. You're right. But there are actually a few: plot/plot3d/transform.pyx combinat/words/words.py combinat/words/word_opt

Re: [sage-devel] Re: Sage library license

2014-02-24 Thread Jeroen Demeyer
On 2014-02-24 21:32, Julian Rüth wrote: In many places we have GPLv2 (without the +) I hope not, that would be a big problem. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "sage-devel" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send

Re: [sage-devel] Re: Sage library license

2014-02-24 Thread Julian Rüth
* Volker Braun [2014-02-24 12:20:43 -0800]: > IMHO GPLv3+ is the recommended license by the FSF. What exactly is there to > fix? In many places we have GPLv2 (without the +). GPLv3+ is incompatible with GPLv2 (http://gplv3.fsf.org/wiki/index.php/Compatible_licenses). julian pgpjF7vfst4ln.pgp D

Re: [sage-devel] Re: Sage library license

2014-02-24 Thread Volker Braun
IMHO GPLv3+ is the recommended license by the FSF. What exactly is there to fix? -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "sage-devel" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to sage-devel+unsubscr...@googlegrou

Re: [sage-devel] Re: Sage library license

2014-02-24 Thread Jeroen Demeyer
On 2014-02-24 20:42, Julian Rüth wrote: ./rings/number_field/splitting_field.py This code is mine can be released under the GPL v2 also. I simply copied the copyright statement from the new developer's manual (the one which was changed from "version 2 or later" to "version 3 or later"). Jeroe

Re: [sage-devel] Re: Sage library license

2014-02-24 Thread William Stein
On Mon, Feb 24, 2014 at 11:42 AM, Julian Rüth wrote: > * William Stein [2014-02-24 11:34:25 -0800]: >> Thus I find no code in the core Sage library that is GPLv3(+). > I found these three matches: > $ grep -r "version 3" . > ./schemes/toric/points.py:# as published by the Free Software Foundatio

Re: [sage-devel] Re: Sage library license

2014-02-24 Thread Julian Rüth
* William Stein [2014-02-24 11:34:25 -0800]: > Thus I find no code in the core Sage library that is GPLv3(+). I found these three matches: $ grep -r "version 3" . ./schemes/toric/points.py:# as published by the Free Software Foundation; either version 3 of ./rings/number_field/splitting_field.py

Re: [sage-devel] Re: Sage library license

2014-02-24 Thread William Stein
On Mon, Feb 24, 2014 at 11:18 AM, Volker Braun wrote: > Without any spelunking on sage-devel, as GPLv3+ is a subset of GPLv2+ all > you need is find a source file that claims specifically GPLv3+. I'm at a > conference right now and haven't done the grep exercise, but I'm pretty sure > that will be

[sage-devel] Re: Sage library license

2014-02-24 Thread Volker Braun
Without any spelunking on sage-devel, as GPLv3+ is a subset of GPLv2+ all you need is find a source file that claims specifically GPLv3+. I'm at a conference right now and haven't done the grep exercise, but I'm pretty sure that will be easy to find. On Monday, February 24, 2014 3:39:15 PM UT

[sage-devel] Re: Sage library license

2014-02-24 Thread Jason Grout
On 2/24/14 9:01 AM, Jeroen Demeyer wrote: Sage-the-distribution is GPL v3 only. This is the only license which is compatible with all components of Sage. IIRC, that is because some components are licensed as GPL 2 or 3, while others are GPLv3+, right? Thanks, Jason -- You received this me

[sage-devel] Re: Sage library license

2014-02-24 Thread Georg S. Weber
On Monday, 24 February 2014 15:57:23 UTC+1, Georg S. Weber wrote: > > Uh oh. Splendid. License discussion (again). > > Since "GPL v3+" is not compatible with "GPL v2" (without "+"), a change > from GPL v2+ to GPL v3+ would mean a change to a more restrictive license. > > IIRC, Sage-the-library a

Re: [sage-devel] Re: Sage library license

2014-02-24 Thread Jeroen Demeyer
On 2014-02-24 15:57, Georg S. Weber wrote: IIRC, Sage-the-library always was intended to be "GPL v2+", while Sage-the-distribution might have incorporated "GPL v3+" parts by now, but note that IIRC Singular has a license "either GPL v2 or GPL v3" which would rule out something as a (not existing

[sage-devel] Re: Sage library license

2014-02-24 Thread Georg S. Weber
Uh oh. Splendid. License discussion (again). Since "GPL v3+" is not compatible with "GPL v2" (without "+"), a change from GPL v2+ to GPL v3+ would mean a change to a more restrictive license. IIRC, Sage-the-library always was intended to be "GPL v2+", while Sage-the-distribution might have inco

[sage-devel] Re: Sage library license

2014-02-24 Thread Jason Grout
On 2/24/14 8:26 AM, Volker Braun wrote: AFAIK it is GPL v3+, there should be some old discussion on sage-devel IIRC, it is GPL v2+. I'd be interested in seeing the discussion you reference. Jason -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "sage-devel" gr