I usually consider MIT / BSD / Apache 2.0 to be a fairly optimal license
for the work I do. (In that they function to apply credit, limit liability,
and pretty much nothing else. I like licenses that optimize the freedom of
people to use the code for what they want.)
--Christopher
On Fri, Jun 1,
On Fri, Jun 1, 2012 at 7:05 PM, Christopher Swenson wrote:
> Also see this wonderful flow chat written by some of my
> coworkers: http://cl.ly/5nAo
I like it!
They forgot the WTFPL: http://sam.zoy.org/wtfpl/ (gpl compatible!)
Also, i think just "public domain" is not possible for them. This is
I was also going to say that it would be great to get a public statement
from the author that either licenses the software or releases the copyright
into the public domain. From what I understand, without an explicit
statement, the work is still copyrighted and "license free", which can be
dangerou
Thanks.
On 31 May 2012 10:45, mmarco wrote:
> One way to check if they are correctly installed is to try to load
> them.
>
> If you want to use them from a gap session, just start
> sage -gap
> and then load them
> LoadPackage("kbmag");
>
> If you want to use them from sage through the sage-gap i
Thanks for the clear instructions. I just followed them literally and
it all worked fine. I have not tried the extra functionality though
-- is there (for each of the two packages in your examples) an easy
way to see if they are working?
John
On 30 May 2012 20:16, mmarco wrote:
> I have added
It also occurred to me that if there are (other) Gap packages which we
cannot dirstribute with Sage for licensing reasons, an alternative
would be to create a Sage spkg for those and submit it to the Gap
project for them to dirstribute (or at least have on their web page),
so that people could get
On 30 May 2012 10:23, Julien Puydt wrote:
> Le mercredi 30 mai, mmarco a écrit:
>> He sent me an email just an hour ago granting me permission to
>> distribute it under the gpl. Didn't specify which version. So if you
>> can talk to him personally it would be much better.
>
> I think a written pub
Le mercredi 30 mai, mmarco a écrit:
> He sent me an email just an hour ago granting me permission to
> distribute it under the gpl. Didn't specify which version. So if you
> can talk to him personally it would be much better.
I think a written public statement would be much better than a private
o
On Wed, May 30, 2012 at 4:44 AM, John Cremona wrote:
> On 29 May 2012 22:15, David Joyner wrote:
>> On Tue, May 29, 2012 at 5:10 PM, mmarco wrote:
>>> I have contacted the author of the kbmag package (which has no
>>> copyright note at all), and he told me that "it is distributed under
>>> no li
On 29 May 2012 22:15, David Joyner wrote:
> On Tue, May 29, 2012 at 5:10 PM, mmarco wrote:
>> I have contacted the author of the kbmag package (which has no
>> copyright note at all), and he told me that "it is distributed under
>> no license, it is completely open source". I have asked him permi
On Tue, May 29, 2012 at 5:10 PM, mmarco wrote:
> I have contacted the author of the kbmag package (which has no
> copyright note at all), and he told me that "it is distributed under
> no license, it is completely open source". I have asked him permission
> to distribute it under the gpl license.
11 matches
Mail list logo
