On Sep 25, 12:31 pm, Robert Bradshaw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> GMP 4.2.2 is LGPLv3, not GPLv3, so I think it would still work
> (though as I did mention, this is still an issue if we use anything
> with the (non-library) GPL). My proposal was that SAGE would be our
> GPL derivative but without
On 9/25/07, cwitty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> What you're missing here is that gmp4.2.2 is not GPL3 licensed; it is
> LGPL3 licensed. I don't know of any SAGE component that is planning
> to switch to being GPL3(-only) licensed.
GSL (http://www.gnu.org/software/gsl/), which is an extremely
im
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> Anyway. Sorry for that. I found this link useful:
>
> http://www.groklaw.net/articlebasic.php?story=20060118155841115
>
> and I got the above quotes from row #5.
>
FYI, this is a diff to an old draft of GPLv3! Mark the date.
Read the real thing: http://www.gnu
On Sep 25, 12:18 pm, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Hence, if Sage cannot function without GPL3 software, it *must* be licensed
> under GPL3, and no other license. Therefore, "GPL2 or later" truly means
> "GPL3" the instant that we include gmp4.2.2, no matter what we might tell
> ourselves. Similarl
On 9/25/07, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> This is not an option. From GPL2:
>
> 2. ...
>b) You must cause any work that you distribute or publish, that in
>whole or in part contains or is derived from the Program or any
>part thereof, to be licensed as a whole at n
GMP 4.2.2 is LGPLv3, not GPLv3, so I think it would still work
(though as I did mention, this is still an issue if we use anything
with the (non-library) GPL). My proposal was that SAGE would be our
GPL derivative but without this annoyance.
My understanding is that GPLv2 can link to librar
This is not an option. From GPL2:
2. ...
b) You must cause any work that you distribute or publish, that in
whole or in part contains or is derived from the Program or any
part thereof, to be licensed as a whole at no charge to all third
parties under the terms of this License.
>Fr
At this point it looks like the only reasonable option is to
(begrudgingly) move to "GPLv2 or above" but there is another option
that I haven't seen come up in discussion yet, and that is releasing
SAGE under an amended GPLv2 that explicitly allows linking against
LGPLv3+ libraries (or som
On 9/25/07, Bill Hart <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> If SAGE developers weren't so thin on the ground, I'm sure that we
> could fork GMP. I'd be interested in doing so, for various reasons.
> There's already code in the FLINT project which could go straight into
> a forked GMP. I'd also like to get
If SAGE developers weren't so thin on the ground, I'm sure that we
could fork GMP. I'd be interested in doing so, for various reasons.
There's already code in the FLINT project which could go straight into
a forked GMP. I'd also like to get around to providing decent assembly
support for the PS3.
> Actually GMP is far from stale. Anyway, I put the chances of a
> viable GMP fork in the next year at 1% (see below).
>
> It would be very useful to figure out what the situation is with Singular's
> licensing plans. Do they have a mailing list or something?
>
> -- William
>
> Why I think GMP
On 9/24/07, Gonzalo Tornaria <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I understood the plan was to ignore the issue for the time being, and
> see how other projects react. I think this was a good idea, and I
> think it's still feasible to wait and see. The fact that GMP and GSL
That has been the plan for a l
Oops. I thought I'd read the whole thread when I wrote this, but I hadn't.
For now, I'm ok with "v2 or later".
On Mon, 24 Sep 2007 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
>>> 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
>> 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 my
On Sep 24, 2007, at 1:31 PM, Gonzalo Tornaria wrote:
> Anyway, GMP has been stale for... 5 years?
Why do people keep saying that GMP is stale?
This has not been my observation at all.
There are not insignificant performance differences between even a
fairly recent version (like 4.1.4) and t
On 9/24/07, William Stein <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > I contributed under that assumption. I don't like GPL v2 or later, I
> > might be closer to GPL v2 or v3 than that. Overall, I agree with
> > Joel's comments earlier in this thread.
>
> Wait, are you saying that you would not allow your co
On 9/24/07, Gonzalo Tornaria <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > These are the people that both contributed code to the core library and
> > took the time to actually explicitly put their names as copyright holders
> > on files (in most cases this means they were the first to create the given
> > file)
On 9/24/07, William Stein <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Regarding (1), I'll define the copyright holders of the Sage *library*
> to be the names
> listed in the output of the following command (with some slight
> editing, e.g., since
> copyright statements for octave are in doctests):
>
> $ cd
> It could be fun, because you could write a replacement to GMP that
> records all arithmetic operations that are done using GMP, then link
> Maple against it and see what Maple is doing... :-)
>
Well, if you really want to know just hook a couple logging functions
in the gmp lib and you are don
I had an alpha/OSF for 5 years until March 2004; by then it was
essentially the only such machine running Magma in the world with one
exception being the machine they built Magma on for me. I think they
were relieved when it went...
John
On 9/24/07, mabshoff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On S
On Sep 24, 5:22 pm, "William Stein" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 9/24/07, Bill Hart <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > OK, I hadn't read section 9 of the GPL. So now I agree with you that
> > Pari doesn't need to do anything. Excellent.
>
> :-)
>
> > So basically all the new lines of SAGE code wo
On 9/24/07, Bill Hart <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> OK, I hadn't read section 9 of the GPL. So now I agree with you that
> Pari doesn't need to do anything. Excellent.
:-)
> So basically all the new lines of SAGE code would be a library, which
> can be linked against other libraries, and would be
OK, I hadn't read section 9 of the GPL. So now I agree with you that
Pari doesn't need to do anything. Excellent.
So basically all the new lines of SAGE code would be a library, which
can be linked against other libraries, and would be v2 or later.
The SAGE tarball, that contains everything, inc
Hello,
Thank you for all this licensing discussion. Given our resources, it seems
to me that the only viable option is as follows:
(1) Get permission to relicense the Sage library under "GPL v2 or later",
(2) Remove anything from Sage that doesn't switch to "GPL v2 or
later" within some
On 9/24/07, mabshoff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sep 24, 1:30 pm, "David Joyner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On 9/24/07, Jaap Spies <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > Jason Martin wrote:
> > > > My vote would be to change the sage license to "GPLv2 or later" and
> > > > try to get the Singula
On 9/23/07, Bill Hart <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 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 al
On Sep 24, 1:30 pm, "David Joyner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 9/24/07, Jaap Spies <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
>
> > Jason Martin wrote:
> > > 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
> > >
On Sep 23, 7:54 pm, David Harvey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 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
David Joyner wrote:
> On 9/24/07, Jaap Spies <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Jason Martin wrote:
>>> 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
William Stein wrote:
> On 9/23/07, Joel B. Mohler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> On Sunday 23 September 2007 15:46, William Stein wrote:
>> I very much do not like the blanket "or later version" scheme for dealing
>> with
>> the GPL. This, to me, gives the FSF a blank check for whatever in GPLv4
On 9/24/07, Jaap Spies <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Jason Martin wrote:
> > 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 t
Jason Martin wrote:
> 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 s
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
>> 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, 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
> 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
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
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
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
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_
65 matches
Mail list logo
