On 7/30/07, Alec Mihailovs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > the situation is similar to how one can legally use a program from
> > bash -- but are there weird legal issues with doing this:
> > sage: mathematica(2) + gap(2)
> > 4
>
> Related to that, I wonder whether implementing something li
From: "William Stein" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> the situation is similar to how one can legally use a program from
> bash -- but are there weird legal issues with doing this:
> sage: mathematica(2) + gap(2)
> 4
Related to that, I wonder whether implementing something like
number_of_partition
On 7/29/07, Alec Mihailovs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> From: "Bobby Moretti" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >
> > It would be one thing if SAGE was just a distribution of software,
> > with a package management system. But SAGE contains (lots) of code
> > that wraps these libraries and provides a unified
"William Stein" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On 7/29/07, David Joyner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> > Does that sound reasonable to sage-devel?
>>
>> Sounds good to me..
>>
>> BTW, anything I contributed can be released under "GPL v2 or later".
>> Also, I checked that GAP is distributed that wa
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Creative Commons creates a legal equivalent of public domain where it doesn't
> already exist. At that point, Microsoft can use it, improve / harm it in any
> way they like, take all the credit, and turn a profit. It's essentially a
> license to relicense it under y
From: "Bobby Moretti" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> It would be one thing if SAGE was just a distribution of software,
> with a package management system. But SAGE contains (lots) of code
> that wraps these libraries and provides a unified interface to them.
> I'm fairly confident that this falls under
On 7/29/07, Alec Mihailovs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> From: "Bobby Moretti" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> >> Well, I wouldn't call SAGE a single program.
> >
> > The issue is complicated, and I doubt a lawyer would agree.
> >
> > Besides, that's exactly what
> >> commercial CAS's do. In particular,
From: "Bobby Moretti" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> Well, I wouldn't call SAGE a single program.
>
> The issue is complicated, and I doubt a lawyer would agree.
>
> Besides, that's exactly what
>> commercial CAS's do. In particular, Maple includes gmp and a series of
>> other
>> programs under separate
On 7/29/07, Justin C. Walker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
> On Jul 29, 2007, at 18:24 , Alec Mihailovs wrote:
>
> >
> > From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >
> >>
> >> Not always so. Verbatim snippet from the horse's mouth:
> >>
> >>
> >> "When we say that GPLv2 and GPLv3 are incompatible, it means the
On Jul 29, 2007, at 18:24 , Alec Mihailovs wrote:
>
> From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
>>
>> Not always so. Verbatim snippet from the horse's mouth:
>>
>>
>> "When we say that GPLv2 and GPLv3 are incompatible, it means there
>> is no
>> legal way to combine code under GPLv2 with code under GPLv3 i
On 7/29/07, Alec Mihailovs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> >
> > Not always so. Verbatim snippet from the horse's mouth:
> >
> >
> > "When we say that GPLv2 and GPLv3 are incompatible, it means there is no
> > legal way to combine code under GPLv2 with code under GPLv
From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> Not always so. Verbatim snippet from the horse's mouth:
>
>
> "When we say that GPLv2 and GPLv3 are incompatible, it means there is no
> legal way to combine code under GPLv2 with code under GPLv3 in a single
> program. This is because both GPLv2 and GPLv3 are cop
Not always so. Verbatim snippet from the horse's mouth:
"When we say that GPLv2 and GPLv3 are incompatible, it means there is no legal
way to combine code under GPLv2 with code under GPLv3 in a single program. This
is because both GPLv2 and GPLv3 are copyleft licenses: each of them says, "If
There is also a possibility to release a distribution under few different
licenses - for example, a part as GPL3, a part as GPL 2, and a part as MIT
or whatever. That, by the way, would allow including code from Microsoft
Research.
Alec
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
> \begin{RankSpeculationRequest}
> Does anyone have a good feel for the impact of adding BSD-, MIT-, or
> CCL-licensed content to a base that is licensed under GPL2 (as I
> think SAGE is now); or under GPL3?
>
> My recollection is that it isn't pretty.
> \end{RankSpeculationRequest}
I forgot to
On Jul 29, 2007, at 3:42 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>> While I think the goals of the FSF in general and the various
>> and sundry versions of the GPL in particular are in many senses
>> noble,
>
> To the contrary, the general theme in GPLv3 seems to be "!
> @#$ you, Microsoft and Tivo" reg
> While I think the goals of the FSF in general and the various
> and sundry versions of the GPL in particular are in many senses noble,
To the contrary, the general theme in GPLv3 seems to be "[EMAIL
PROTECTED] you, Microsoft and Tivo" regardless of any political backlash.
About as noble as a
mwrank's GPL statement says version 2 or later!
John
On 7/29/07, William Stein <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > BTW, anything I contributed can be released under "GPL v2 or later".
> > Also, I checked that GAP is distributed that way
> > http://www.gap-system.org/Download/copyright.html
>
> Thank
On Jul 29, 2007, at 12:03 , William Stein wrote:
> On 7/29/07, Pablo De Napoli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[snip]
> Yes, I cannot release SAGE under GPL V3 until:
>
>1. Every single component of SAGE, including PARI,
> is licensed under a GPL V3 compatible license, and
>
>2. I get pe
On 7/29/07, David Joyner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Does that sound reasonable to sage-devel?
>
> Sounds good to me..
>
> BTW, anything I contributed can be released under "GPL v2 or later".
> Also, I checked that GAP is distributed that way
> http://www.gap-system.org/Download/copyright.html
On 7/29/07, William Stein <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On 7/29/07, Pablo De Napoli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > William (and others):
> >
> > There is a licence issue about Sage raised by GPL-v3, that may be you
> > need to consider
> > (I'm not a lawyer so that what I'm saying could be wrong)
While I think the goals of the FSF in general and the various
and sundry versions of the GPL in particular are in many senses noble,
I *bitterly* resent the complexity of the GPL, especially version 3.
The implication of that complexity is that a programmer who wishes to
develop free software must
Yes, it sounds to be a reasonable plan to me.
All of us I think do prefer do coding and mathematics... =)
(But I thought that it was something important to be aware of)
Pablo
On 7/29/07, William Stein <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On 7/29/07, Pablo De Napoli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Wil
On 7/29/07, Pablo De Napoli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> William (and others):
>
> There is a licence issue about Sage raised by GPL-v3, that may be you
> need to consider
> (I'm not a lawyer so that what I'm saying could be wrong).
This comes up in sage-devel about once every other month.
Thanks
On 7/29/07, Pablo De Napoli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> William (and others):
>
> There is a licence issue about Sage raised by GPL-v3, that may be you
> need to consider
> (I'm not a lawyer so that what I'm saying could be wrong).
As far as I can tell, what you are saying is consistent with
25 matches
Mail list logo
