On Tue, May 5, 2009 at 7:56 PM, Gonzalo Tornaria
wrote:
>
> On Tue, May 5, 2009 at 11:48 PM, Brian Granger
> wrote:
>> This is all true. But modifying an original work is not the only way
>> of creating a derived work. Ondrej's script *is* a derived work under
>> the definition that the FSF g
This is the relevant entry from the GPL FAQ:
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#IfInterpreterIsGPL
To quote:
[quote]
If a programming language interpreter is released under the GPL, does
that mean programs written to be interpreted by it must be under GPL-
compatible licenses?
When the in
Hello,
As mentioned in
http://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel/browse_thread/thread/834be3b28bd7919f/45629a29507db4cb?lnk=gst&q=tkz#45629a29507db4cb
I am trying to write latex(G) for a graph.
I now have a newer version which supports vertex, edge and label
colors, as well as different styles
On Tue, May 5, 2009 at 10:13 PM, Brian Granger wrote:
>
...
>
>> In general, to function as a derived work requires that you modify a
>> certain number of
>> lines in the codebase of the software. I think the GPL FAQ has about 30-50
>> (I don't remember exactly). So if Rob had about 50 lines fr
Hi Fidel,
Contributions to Sage are made via patch files produced with
Mercurial. You may not know it, but where you are building your
modifications to Sage, they are being tracked in a local copy of a
Mercurial repository. The best place to start is here:
http://www.sagemath.org/doc/developer
Michael,
Thank you for bringing up this issue as it does clarify some aspect of
Sage derived code and licensing. But, in my mind, the "sage as
interpreter" aspect is a small perturbation on top of the zero-order:
Sage = Python + GPL libraries
That is, for the most part, I view the interpreter
Rob Beezer wrote:
> Your script was your creative work (well, not very creative). You
> could have copied it onto CD's and sold those for whatever price you
> could fetch. I could not buy a CD from you and make copies to sell -
> that would violate your copyright. You have not modified Sage, yo
On Wed, May 6, 2009 at 12:23 AM, Brian Granger wrote:
>
> Michael,
>
> Thank you for bringing up this issue as it does clarify some aspect of
> Sage derived code and licensing. But, in my mind, the "sage as
> interpreter" aspect is a small perturbation on top of the zero-order:
>
> Sage = Python
> It is interesting I think that of the two interpretations of the GPL
> represented by the many people in this thread, it seems that
> there are those in the "Rosen camp" as described in
> http://www.linuxjournal.com/article/6366, http://www.rosenlaw.com/lj19.htm
> (Rosen is general counsel of OS
On May 5, 2009, at 9:23 PM, Brian Granger wrote:
> Michael,
>
> Thank you for bringing up this issue as it does clarify some aspect of
> Sage derived code and licensing. But, in my mind, the "sage as
> interpreter" aspect is a small perturbation on top of the zero-order:
>
> Sage = Python + GPL
On Tue, May 5, 2009 at 3:25 PM, Brian Granger wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> I have a question about Sage and the GPL. Here is the main question..
>
> IF I write code in a Sage notebook, AND I redistribute the code, do I
> need to release my code under the GPL?
>
> Here is a bit of background...
>
> At a co
On Tue, May 5, 2009 at 10:41 PM, Robert Bradshaw
wrote:
>
> On May 5, 2009, at 9:23 PM, Brian Granger wrote:
>
>> Michael,
>>
>> Thank you for bringing up this issue as it does clarify some aspect of
>> Sage derived code and licensing. But, in my mind, the "sage as
>> interpreter" aspect is a sm
If you were to print out the source code and distribute it in a book,
it should not change the conclusions of copyright law. People tend to
get very caught up in technical theories, and they often view the law
the way they view software, but a judge will do a basic "sanity
check". If you publish
On May 5, 10:50 pm, William Stein wrote:
> On Tue, May 5, 2009 at 3:25 PM, Brian Granger wrote:
> > * Is the code pure python or does it use the sage syntax? If the code
> > uses the sage syntax, I think it must be released under the GPL.
> > * Does the code being written actually use any
William,
Thanks for your replies. I mostly want to know what the consensus
interpretation of these issues is amongst the Sage devs. Slowly, I am
getting a picture of what this consensus looks like.
> Publicly distributed code using GPL'd library must be GPL'd.
Great, to first order that is my
On Tue, May 5, 2009 at 10:41 PM, Robert Bradshaw
wrote:
>
> On May 5, 2009, at 9:23 PM, Brian Granger wrote:
>
>> Michael,
>>
>> Thank you for bringing up this issue as it does clarify some aspect of
>> Sage derived code and licensing. But, in my mind, the "sage as
>> interpreter" aspect is a sm
On Tue, May 05, 2009 at 03:11:48PM -0700, Nicolas Thiéry wrote:
> Dear Franco, dear all,
>
> Patch of the day: #5991 Add a standard constructor for dynamic classes
>
> Franco, since you are using dynamic classes in Sage-Words, could you
> review or comment on it?
For information: I just a
On Tue, May 5, 2009 at 11:12 PM, Brian Granger wrote:
>> No, definitely not. But if you post the notebooks publicly and they make
>> use
>> of the sage library, then they have to be GPL'd.
>
> Great, this is what I thought.
> But, then some (or even many) Sage
> users and devs are in violatio
Ah now I see, you mean though it displays 1/384 it is internally still
the above sum, which is computed when evaluated with n.
Well but then this contains imho 2 bugs:
1. 1**(a/b) should be the integer 1.
2. The display of a SymbolicArithmetic should show whats really there
and not reduce before
At the beginning of this thread, someone posted a link to the Sage worksheet:
http://abstract.ups.edu/sage-aata.html
That is 1) being publicly distributed and 2) is not being released
under the GPL.
Plus, anyone can create an account on the public Sage notebook
servers, so basically any workshe
On Tue, May 5, 2009 at 11:16 PM, Henryk Trappmann
wrote:
>
> Ah now I see, you mean though it displays 1/384 it is internally still
> the above sum, which is computed when evaluated with n.
True. In Sage right now the internal form of the expression (not the
simplified form) is used by the "n"
> Licensing discussions just suck and are a waste of time. Sigh
Yes, I fully a agree with youexcept when people learn new things
about the GPL. I think some important things have come out of this
discussion:
* A notebook/Worksheet is source code and can potentially be a
derivative work
Hello folks,
apologies that it took a while, but the final 3.4.2 source tarball
announced a couple days ago turned out to be not truly final :). So
here are md5sums to make the difference clear:
8fe47c23872bc39ceb0136602062c917 sage-3.4.2.tar
fe5ce17b31557f57f32a714855f22d26 sage-3.4.2-sage.ma
On Tue, May 5, 2009 at 11:30 PM, Brian Granger wrote:
>
> At the beginning of this thread, someone posted a link to the Sage worksheet:
>
> http://abstract.ups.edu/sage-aata.html
>
> That is 1) being publicly distributed and 2) is not being released
> under the GPL.
>
> Plus, anyone can create an
On May 5, 11:34 pm, Brian Granger wrote:
> > Licensing discussions just suck and are a waste of time. Sigh
>
> Yes, I fully a agree with youexcept when people learn new things
> about the GPL. I think some important things have come out of this
> discussion:
>
> * A notebook/Worksheet
On Tue, May 05, 2009 at 08:50:09PM -0700, Fidel wrote:
> Hello,
>
> As mentioned in
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel/browse_thread/thread/834be3b28bd7919f/45629a29507db4cb?lnk=gst&q=tkz#45629a29507db4cb
>
> I am trying to write latex(G) for a graph.
>
> I now have a newer version
Hi,
This is surprising to me.
sage: F. = GF(2^3)
sage: a.order(),a.additive_order(),a.multiplicative_order()
(2, 2, 7)
Who is interested in the additive order of a? I think that order()
should be aliased to multiplicative_order().
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
To post t
On Tue, May 5, 2009 at 11:45 PM, mabshoff wrote:
>
>
>
> On May 5, 11:34 pm, Brian Granger wrote:
>> > Licensing discussions just suck and are a waste of time. Sigh
>>
>> Yes, I fully a agree with youexcept when people learn new things
>> about the GPL. I think some important things ha
On Tue, May 5, 2009 at 11:50 PM, Kwankyu wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> This is surprising to me.
>
> sage: F. = GF(2^3)
> sage: a.order(),a.additive_order(),a.multiplicative_order()
> (2, 2, 7)
>
> Who is interested in the additive order of a? I think that order()
> should be aliased to multiplicative_order
OK, Brian, you beat me to it, I was going to post this link again in
an effort to prolong this thread. ;-)
This link points to a tutorial about how to use Sage to do group
theory. PDF and *.sws formats. Lots of text, but significant
sections of Sage code, including an @interact. Is this a "te
On May 5, 2009, at 11:12 PM, William Stein wrote:
>
> On Tue, May 5, 2009 at 10:41 PM, Robert Bradshaw
> wrote:
>>
>> On May 5, 2009, at 9:23 PM, Brian Granger wrote:
>>
>>> Michael,
>>>
>>> Thank you for bringing up this issue as it does clarify some
>>> aspect of
>>> Sage derived code and l
On Tue, May 5, 2009 at 11:41 PM, William Stein wrote:
>
> On Tue, May 5, 2009 at 11:30 PM, Brian Granger
> wrote:
>> Now that I think about it, how would I release a worksheet under the
>> GPL. The usual way is to add:
>>
>> This program is free software: you can redistribute it and/or modify
101 - 132 of 132 matches
Mail list logo
