On Fri, Jun 29, 2012 at 2:37 PM, Jason Grout
wrote:
> No, that wouldn't work. For one, the BSD license says:
>
> Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright notice, this
> list of conditions and the following disclaimer.
>
> So you can't just delete the BSD header and replace i
Ok sorry, probably I was confusing with the revised BSD and the fact that
the license happily allows proprietary software to use and abuse open
source components. But yes, you are right about the single files.
--
Andrea Lazzarotto
--
To post to this group, send an email to sage-devel@googlegroup
On 6/29/12 4:30 PM, Andrea Lazzarotto wrote:
Il giorno 29/giu/2012 23:20, "Jason Grout" mailto:jason-s...@creativetrax.com>> ha scritto:
> The BSD files themselves would still be BSD, even if the distribution
was GPL, right? You can't just delete the BSD header and change it to
GPL, can you?
Y
Il giorno 29/giu/2012 23:20, "Jason Grout" ha
scritto:
> The BSD files themselves would still be BSD, even if the distribution was
GPL, right? You can't just delete the BSD header and change it to GPL, can
you?
You can change a single character and release your modified version as GPL.
:-)
--
A
On 6/29/12 4:13 PM, Jeroen Demeyer wrote:
On 2012-06-29 20:54, Fernando Perez wrote:
On Fri, Jun 29, 2012 at 11:46 AM, Jan Groenewald wrote:
Would this symmetric flow not also be possible if ipython relicensed to GPL?
Honest question.
Certainly, but that's not in the cards. All the 'scipy e
On 6/29/12 1:54 PM, Fernando Perez wrote:
It would be likely impossible to
get them to agree to a GPL relicensing.
But you wouldn't have to, right? You could just add one file that was
GPL, and start distributing that, and IPython would switch to GPL
(though the files already there would be
On 2012-06-29 20:54, Fernando Perez wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 29, 2012 at 11:46 AM, Jan Groenewald wrote:
>> Would this symmetric flow not also be possible if ipython relicensed to GPL?
>> Honest question.
>
> Certainly, but that's not in the cards. All the 'scipy ecosytem'
> (python, numpy, scipy, m
>
> Besides at this
>
point even if I wanted (which I don't) to change it I couldn't, as
> there are by now way too many ipython contributors who made their
> contributions to the project as BSD. It would be likely impossible to
> get them to agree to a GPL relicensing.
>
Can't it be an issue for
On Fri, Jun 29, 2012 at 11:46 AM, Jan Groenewald wrote:
> Would this symmetric flow not also be possible if ipython relicensed to GPL?
> Honest question.
Certainly, but that's not in the cards. All the 'scipy ecosytem'
(python, numpy, scipy, matplotlib, ipython, pandas, statsmodels,
scikit-learn
Hi
On 29 June 2012 20:39, Fernando Perez wrote:
> Minor note from the peanut gallery:
>
> On Wed, Jun 27, 2012 at 10:46 AM, William Stein wrote:
> > We should just relicense the sage notebook as BSD to completely
> > eliminate this problem
>
> speaking from the IPython side, this would be great
Minor note from the peanut gallery:
On Wed, Jun 27, 2012 at 10:46 AM, William Stein wrote:
> We should just relicense the sage notebook as BSD to completely
> eliminate this problem
speaking from the IPython side, this would be great for us. We're
starting to have real collaboration between ipy
On 6/28/12 8:49 AM, kcrisman wrote:
On Thursday, June 28, 2012 9:32:05 AM UTC-4, Jeroen Demeyer wrote:
On 2012-06-28 15:27, kcrisman wrote:
> I don't think that's quite fair. A lot of the development of the new
> notebook has been done by people on Mac, from what I can tell, whil
On Thursday, June 28, 2012 9:32:05 AM UTC-4, Jeroen Demeyer wrote:
>
> On 2012-06-28 15:27, kcrisman wrote:
> > I don't think that's quite fair. A lot of the development of the new
> > notebook has been done by people on Mac, from what I can tell, while
> > it's been run on Linux. And most o
On 2012-06-28 14:47, kcrisman wrote:
> I don't see why a notebook-only upgrade couldn't be done for 5.2, release
> end of July, if that really was pretty much all that was included.
I doubt that adding more stuff will significantly slow down the release.
--
To post to this group, send an email to
On 2012-06-28 15:27, kcrisman wrote:
> I don't think that's quite fair. A lot of the development of the new
> notebook has been done by people on Mac, from what I can tell, while
> it's been run on Linux. And most of the web app stuff has been "tested"
> by people using all kinds of different bro
On Thursday, June 28, 2012 8:59:32 AM UTC-4, Jeroen Demeyer wrote:
>
> On 2012-06-28 14:36, Jason Grout wrote:
> > On 6/28/12 3:37 AM, David Kirkby wrote:
> >> I'm sure Jeroen knows this, but I think I'll raise the point anyway.
> >> Trying to rush a release because certain people want featur
On 2012-06-28 14:36, Jason Grout wrote:
> On 6/28/12 3:37 AM, David Kirkby wrote:
>> I'm sure Jeroen knows this, but I think I'll raise the point anyway.
>> Trying to rush a release because certain people want feature X, Y or Z
>> is dangerous. There is far more chance of getting bugs. Also, whils
On Thursday, June 28, 2012 8:36:16 AM UTC-4, jason wrote:
>
> On 6/28/12 3:37 AM, David Kirkby wrote:
> > I'm sure Jeroen knows this, but I think I'll raise the point anyway.
> > Trying to rush a release because certain people want feature X, Y or Z
> > is dangerous. There is far more chance
On 6/28/12 3:37 AM, David Kirkby wrote:
I'm sure Jeroen knows this, but I think I'll raise the point anyway.
Trying to rush a release because certain people want feature X, Y or Z
is dangerous. There is far more chance of getting bugs. Also, whilst I
apprecaite some system admins don't like inst
On Thursday, 28 June 2012 09:58:39 UTC+1, Dr. David Kirkby wrote:
>
> On 27 June 2012 19:17, Volker Braun wrote:
> > On Wednesday, June 27, 2012 6:25:19 PM UTC+1, Michael Orlitzky wrote:
> >>
> >> If you combine GPL and GPL-incompatible software and redistribute the
> >> result, you have a p
The "system library exception" does not require or imply any popular
consensus about what an operating system should ship with.
MinGW and Cygwin both link to proprietary libraries under the system
library exception, yet nobody in their right mind would want those
proprietary libraries in their
On 27 June 2012 19:17, Volker Braun wrote:
> On Wednesday, June 27, 2012 6:25:19 PM UTC+1, Michael Orlitzky wrote:
>>
>> If you combine GPL and GPL-incompatible software and redistribute the
>> result, you have a problem.
>
>
> Not necessarily, this is the System Library exception in the GPL.
Yes
On Wednesday, June 27, 2012 6:25:19 PM UTC+1, Michael Orlitzky wrote:
>
> If you combine GPL and GPL-incompatible software and redistribute the
> result, you have a problem.
Not necessarily, this is the System Library exception in the GPL.
--
To post to this group, send an email to sage-devel
On Wed, Jun 27, 2012 at 12:00 PM, Jeroen Demeyer wrote:
> On 2012-06-27 19:46, William Stein wrote:
>> We indirectly support an *optional* (and little used) feature for the
>> Sage notebook called "ssl support", and for people to use it, they
>> must either use the system-wide ssl on their compute
On 2012-06-27 19:46, William Stein wrote:
> We indirectly support an *optional* (and little used) feature for the
> Sage notebook called "ssl support", and for people to use it, they
> must either use the system-wide ssl on their computer or install an
> optional package themselves.
It's not option
On Wed, Jun 27, 2012 at 11:25 AM, Michael Orlitzky wrote:
> On 06/27/12 11:40, Volker Braun wrote:
>> On Wednesday, June 27, 2012 4:24:29 PM UTC+1, Michael Orlitzky wrote:
>>
>> Debian wants to ship only Free Software. If your Free Software requires
>> non-Free software, it ain't Free.
>>
On 06/27/12 11:40, Volker Braun wrote:
> On Wednesday, June 27, 2012 4:24:29 PM UTC+1, Michael Orlitzky wrote:
>
> Debian wants to ship only Free Software. If your Free Software requires
> non-Free software, it ain't Free.
>
>
> This has nothing to do with the issue at hand. Both Apache
On Wednesday, June 27, 2012 4:24:29 PM UTC+1, Michael Orlitzky wrote:
>
> Debian wants to ship only Free Software. If your Free Software requires
> non-Free software, it ain't Free.
>
This has nothing to do with the issue at hand. Both Apache v1.0 and GPL are
Free Software Licenses. They are in
On 06/27/12 11:16, Volker Braun wrote:
> Debian is also pretty much the only one who disagrees with this.
>
> On Wednesday, June 27, 2012 4:13:40 PM UTC+1, Jeroen Demeyer wrote:
>
> > Neither of these have any legal problems AFAIK.
> Debian disagrees with this...
>
Debian wants to ship
Debian is also pretty much the only one who disagrees with this.
On Wednesday, June 27, 2012 4:13:40 PM UTC+1, Jeroen Demeyer wrote:
>
> > Neither of these have any legal problems AFAIK.
> Debian disagrees with this...
>
--
To post to this group, send an email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com
To
On 2012-06-27 11:12, Keshav Kini wrote:
> We're not shipping OpenSSL, just requiring it as a dependency. We also
> provide it as an optional supplementary download for those who don't
> have the authority to install OpenSSL globally on their system.
> Neither of these have any legal problems AFAIK
Julien Puydt writes:
> Le 25/06/2012 22:01, Jeroen Demeyer a écrit :
>> I can try for a quick sage-5.2 release, but one month is fairly tight.
>> I also depends a lot on how much troubles we get with the new notebook
>> (and OpenSSL), which will hopefully finally get merged.
>
> Beware of OpenSSL
On 6/26/12 8:37 AM, kcrisman wrote:
On Tuesday, June 26, 2012 7:59:55 AM UTC-4, Jeroen Demeyer wrote:
On 2012-06-26 13:46, Andrey Novoseltsev wrote:
> At least 0.9.0, as it should fix a number of issues present in
the old
> one. It is also annoying creating interacts in the n
On Tuesday, June 26, 2012 7:59:55 AM UTC-4, Jeroen Demeyer wrote:
>
> On 2012-06-26 13:46, Andrey Novoseltsev wrote:
> > At least 0.9.0, as it should fix a number of issues present in the old
> > one. It is also annoying creating interacts in the notebook and then
> > discover that something w
On 2012-06-26 13:46, Andrey Novoseltsev wrote:
> At least 0.9.0, as it should fix a number of issues present in the old
> one. It is also annoying creating interacts in the notebook and then
> discover that something works differently with Sage cell server. As I
> understand it, differences should
At least 0.9.0, as it should fix a number of issues present in the old
one. It is also annoying creating interacts in the notebook and then
discover that something works differently with Sage cell server. As I
understand it, differences should be reduced by the switch.
Having a beta version with e
On 2012-06-26 10:54, Andrey Novoseltsev wrote:
> Hi Jeroen,
>
> I also would like to have Sage with new notebook ready by the start of
> the next term (a bit in advance for testing and setting up) - is it
> possible perhaps to make 5.2 just for the notebook switch?..
Are you talking about sagenb-0
Hi Jeroen,
I also would like to have Sage with new notebook ready by the start of
the next term (a bit in advance for testing and setting up) - is it
possible perhaps to make 5.2 just for the notebook switch?..
Thank you,
Andrey
On Jun 25, 10:01 pm, Jeroen Demeyer wrote:
> On 2012-06-25 20:54,
2009/6/7 Martin Albrecht :
>
> On Saturday 06 June 2009, William Stein wrote:
>> Hi Sage Devel,
>>
>> Now that sage-4.0.1 has been released (13 hours ahead of schedule, and
>> on budget!), it's time for the *community* to work on planning the
>> next Sage release.
>>
>> To get things going, here a
On Saturday 06 June 2009, William Stein wrote:
> Hi Sage Devel,
>
> Now that sage-4.0.1 has been released (13 hours ahead of schedule, and
> on budget!), it's time for the *community* to work on planning the
> next Sage release.
>
> To get things going, here are some questions.
>
> Should it be a
William Stein wrote:
> Hi Sage Devel,
>
> Now that sage-4.0.1 has been released (13 hours ahead of schedule, and
> on budget!), it's time for the *community* to work on planning the
> next Sage release.
>
> To get things going, here are some questions.
>
> Should it be a quick 4.0.2 or a bigger
41 matches
Mail list logo
