I apologize for the way I presented this. No offense was intended for
anybody. I won't follow up in sage-flame, because it was never my
intention to start a flame (I don't think this discussion has turned
into a flame yet, neither by me or others, but I can see it has the
potential to become
2009/5/9 Rob Beezer goo...@beezer.cotse.net:
Gonzalo,
I don't think you have anything to apologize for relative to your
participation in this thread. To the contrary, your key questions
halfway through (that ended up in some other thread), I thought did a
perfect job of capturing the
On May 6, 10:05 pm, Robert Bradshaw rober...@math.washington.edu
wrote:
I think it depends on the context
Yeahr, I think so too, and that's the reason why i think we will never
get an answer based on technical facts and we could discuss forever on
this subject. The jurisdictional system
On Thu, May 7, 2009 at 9:42 PM, William Stein wst...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, May 7, 2009 at 8:19 PM, Brian Granger ellisonbg@gmail.com wrote:
Indeed... but the OP claimed that a jpeg couldn't be a derived work of
gimp because it's not a C++ program, which is a non sequitur.
Do you
On Fri, May 8, 2009 at 6:25 AM, Ondrej Certik ond...@certik.cz wrote:
On Thu, May 7, 2009 at 9:42 PM, William Stein wst...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, May 7, 2009 at 8:19 PM, Brian Granger ellisonbg@gmail.com
wrote:
Most of all, everyone, please go read the damn GPL!
Brian
Though very
On Fri, May 8, 2009 at 7:58 AM, William Stein wst...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, May 8, 2009 at 6:25 AM, Ondrej Certik ond...@certik.cz wrote:
On Thu, May 7, 2009 at 9:42 PM, William Stein wst...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, May 7, 2009 at 8:19 PM, Brian Granger ellisonbg@gmail.com
wrote:
I've just set the sage-flame list to be completely unmoderated, which
seems appropriate for sage-flame.
I hope it will not be spammed. If the sympy list was not moderated,
it'd be full of spam already.
Good point. That usually only happens after a list has been around
a while and has a
2009/5/8 William Stein wst...@gmail.com:
I've just set the sage-flame list to be completely unmoderated, which
seems appropriate for sage-flame.
I hope it will not be spammed. If the sympy list was not moderated,
it'd be full of spam already.
Good point. That usually only happens after
Ondrej Certik wrote:
On Fri, May 8, 2009 at 9:15 AM, John Cremona john.crem...@gmail.com wrote:
I had rather assumed that the new list was never intended to be read
by anyone anyway
Not sure what you mean. I thought William has asked to move the
discussion there, but I hope he didn't
On Fri, May 8, 2009 at 10:06 AM, Jaap Spies j.sp...@hccnet.nl wrote:
Ondrej Certik wrote:
On Fri, May 8, 2009 at 9:15 AM, John Cremona john.crem...@gmail.com wrote:
I had rather assumed that the new list was never intended to be read
by anyone anyway
Not sure what you mean. I thought
2009/5/8 Ondrej Certik ond...@certik.cz:
On Fri, May 8, 2009 at 10:06 AM, Jaap Spies j.sp...@hccnet.nl wrote:
Ondrej Certik wrote:
On Fri, May 8, 2009 at 9:15 AM, John Cremona john.crem...@gmail.com wrote:
I had rather assumed that the new list was never intended to be read
by anyone
John Cremona wrote:
2009/5/8 Ondrej Certik ond...@certik.cz:
On Fri, May 8, 2009 at 10:06 AM, Jaap Spies j.sp...@hccnet.nl wrote:
Ondrej Certik wrote:
On Fri, May 8, 2009 at 9:15 AM, John Cremona john.crem...@gmail.com
wrote:
I had rather assumed that the new list was never intended to be
On Fri, May 8, 2009 at 12:19 AM, Brian Granger ellisonbg@gmail.com wrote:
Indeed... but the OP claimed that a jpeg couldn't be a derived work of
gimp because it's not a C++ program, which is a non sequitur.
Do you actually think a JPEG is a derived for of GIMP or do you
disagree with
Gonzalo,
I don't think you have anything to apologize for relative to your
participation in this thread. To the contrary, your key questions
halfway through (that ended up in some other thread), I thought did a
perfect job of capturing the debate.
Your English is great and your Latin is even
On Wed, May 6, 2009 at 4:05 AM, Brian Granger ellisonbg@gmail.com wrote:
Brian,
A sage worksheet is no more a derived work of Sage than a jpeg would
be a derived work of Photoshop/GIMP or a .doc file would be a derived
work of MS Office or OpenOffice.
I disagree. A jpeg or .doc file
On May 5, 8:05 pm, Brian Granger ellisonbg@gmail.com wrote:
A sage worksheet is no more a derived work of Sage than a jpeg would
be a derived work of Photoshop/GIMP or a .doc file would be a derived
work of MS Office or OpenOffice.
I disagree. A jpeg or .doc file is not source code
I just found this thread, sorry for weighing in late.
Note: this is a light-hearted response to a topic which I consider
very grave. It's been claimed that the script
from sage import Integer
print Integer(2)+Integer(2)
must be GPL'd. I claim that the above is a sage-ultralight script.
I've
Note: this is a light-hearted response to a topic which I consider
very grave. It's been claimed that the script
from sage import Integer
print Integer(2)+Integer(2)
must be GPL'd. I claim that the above is a sage-ultralight script.
I've attached an independent implementation of
On Thu, May 7, 2009 at 11:52 AM, Tom Boothby tomas.boot...@gmail.com wrote:
I just found this thread, sorry for weighing in late.
Note: this is a light-hearted response to a topic which I consider
very grave. It's been claimed that the script
from sage import Integer
print
I disagree. A jpeg or .doc file is not source code in any sense of
the word, thus the GPL is completely irrelevant (I think we agree on
that).
That simply isn't so. To quote the GPL:
This License applies to any program or other work ...
The Program, below, refers to any such program or
On Thu, May 7, 2009 at 4:23 PM, William Stein wst...@gmail.com wrote:
That FAQ entry which you partially quoted concludes with A
consequence is that if you choose to use GPL'd Perl modules or Java
classes in your program, you must release the program in a
GPL-compatible way, regardless of
On Thu, May 7, 2009 at 1:54 PM, Alfredo Portes doyenatc...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, May 7, 2009 at 4:23 PM, William Stein wst...@gmail.com wrote:
That FAQ entry which you partially quoted concludes with A
consequence is that if you choose to use GPL'd Perl modules or Java
classes in your
2009/5/7 Brian Granger ellisonbg@gmail.com:
I disagree. A jpeg or .doc file is not source code in any sense of
the word, thus the GPL is completely irrelevant (I think we agree on
that).
That simply isn't so. To quote the GPL:
This License applies to any program or other work ...
The
On Thu, May 7, 2009 at 1:20 PM, Brian Granger ellisonbg@gmail.com wrote:
He, he. For the above script to run in sage-ultralight,
sage-ultralight must have the same name as sage. Then you get into
copyright/trademark related issues (the name sage is already taken).
Just the same I
sage-ultralight must have the same name as sage. Then you get into
copyright/trademark related issues (the name sage is already taken).
Just the same I could create a GUI toolkit named Qt that was also
released under the SACL license, but you can guess what would happen.
Incorrect.
On Thu, May 7, 2009 at 5:41 PM, Brian Granger ellisonbg@gmail.com wrote:
* The JPEG stands on its own and can be used independently of GIMP.
Beware... copyright law is more about copying and distribution,
than about use. Besides, when I post a notebook, or publish a sage
script in a book,
Gee... is Sage a trademark?
Besides, I don't think a trademark is that strong... E.g. firefox is
a trademark of mozilla. Debian doesn't want to be bound by the terms
of use of said trademark, so the rename the program to iceweasel.
All visible occurrences of the name firefox are replaced by
Gee... is Sage a trademark?
Besides, I don't think a trademark is that strong... E.g. firefox is
a trademark of mozilla. Debian doesn't want to be bound by the terms
of use of said trademark, so the rename the program to iceweasel.
All visible occurrences of the name firefox are replaced
On Thu, May 7, 2009 at 3:51 PM, Gonzalo Tornaria
torna...@math.utexas.edu wrote:
Gee... is Sage a trademark?
Yes, Sage is a trademark. It's not mine though. It is explicitly
listed here:
http://www.sagenorthamerica.com/copyright_trademarks/
Another company changed their name to Sage
Brian Granger wrote:
Are you arguing that jpeg's produced by GIMP are all GPL'd?
No.
I agree that it is definitely possible to release non-programs, such
as JPEGs, under the GPL.
OK, I misunderstood. I thought you were claiming just the opposite.
Robert Dodier
Gonzalo Tornaria wrote:
Auch... then, if I take GIMP source code, and carefully translate it
100% into, say... lisp, then the resulting work is not a C++ program,
and therefore not a derived work.
Careful. I'm pretty sure a translation (be it from natural
language or computer language) is a
Indeed... but the OP claimed that a jpeg couldn't be a derived work of
gimp because it's not a C++ program, which is a non sequitur.
Do you actually think a JPEG is a derived for of GIMP or do you
disagree with how I was arguing? If you merely disagree with my
argument, please don't misquote
Most of all, everyone, please go read the damn GPL!
Out of curiosity, does anyone on the list actually know a lawyer at
FSF? I wouldn't be surprised if someone does with all the Boston
connections.
If so, getting even a small piece of FSF's official position,
without all the IANAL stuff, on
On May 7, 2009, at 8:53 PM, kcrisman wrote:
Most of all, everyone, please go read the damn GPL!
Out of curiosity, does anyone on the list actually know a lawyer at
FSF? I wouldn't be surprised if someone does with all the Boston
connections.
I think (hope) that the restrictions and
On Thu, May 7, 2009 at 8:19 PM, Brian Granger ellisonbg@gmail.com wrote:
Indeed... but the OP claimed that a jpeg couldn't be a derived work of
gimp because it's not a C++ program, which is a non sequitur.
Do you actually think a JPEG is a derived for of GIMP or do you
disagree with how
On Tue, May 5, 2009 at 10:41 PM, Robert Bradshaw
rober...@math.washington.edu 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
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
On May 5, 10:50 pm, William Stein wst...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, May 5, 2009 at 3:25 PM, Brian Granger ellisonbg@gmail.com wrote:
SNIP
* 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
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
rober...@math.washington.edu 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
On Tue, May 5, 2009 at 11:12 PM, Brian Granger ellisonbg@gmail.com 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
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
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
On Tue, May 5, 2009 at 11:30 PM, Brian Granger ellisonbg@gmail.com 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,
On May 5, 11:34 pm, Brian Granger ellisonbg@gmail.com 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
On Tue, May 5, 2009 at 11:45 PM, mabshoff mabsh...@googlemail.com wrote:
On May 5, 11:34 pm, Brian Granger ellisonbg@gmail.com 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.
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
On May 5, 2009, at 11:12 PM, William Stein wrote:
On Tue, May 5, 2009 at 10:41 PM, Robert Bradshaw
rober...@math.washington.edu 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
On Tue, May 5, 2009 at 11:41 PM, William Stein wst...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, May 5, 2009 at 11:30 PM, Brian Granger ellisonbg@gmail.com
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
On Tue, May 5, 2009 at 11:57 PM, Robert Bradshaw
rober...@math.washington.edu wrote:
What about
publishing (collections of) worksheets under the CC license? Code
snippets in books? Are your books GPL compatible? (Maybe you could
claim fair use.)
I have no trouble licensing code under the
On May 6, 2009, at 12:29 AM, William Stein wrote:
On Tue, May 5, 2009 at 11:57 PM, Robert Bradshaw
rober...@math.washington.edu wrote:
What about
publishing (collections of) worksheets under the CC license? Code
snippets in books? Are your books GPL compatible? (Maybe you could
claim fair
On May 6, 8:58 am, Ondrej Certik ond...@certik.cz wrote:
But honestly, I am always astonished by a thread like this and the the
wide range of opinions of what the (L)GPL actually allow you to or
not.
Me too, wow. My opinion is, that if you write a sage script, it's just
a script. You can do
Wow, I really missed quite a thread.
So is there any final consensus on this? Is the following Sage
program automatically GPL?
{{{
2+2
}}}
Or only in the following form?
{{{
Integer(2)+Integer(2)
}}}
Please no flames! I only wanted to know if there was a consensus, I
got sort of confused
On Wed, May 6, 2009 at 4:29 AM, William Stein wst...@gmail.com wrote:
Suppose you spend three years implementing an algorithm as part of
Sage to compute X (say some Monsky-Washnitzer cohomology
computations). Then somebody else writes and publishes a clever paper
that includes a several-page
On 05/06/2009 07:50 AM, William Stein wrote:
On Tue, May 5, 2009 at 3:25 PM, Brian Granger ellisonbg@gmail.com 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
On Wed, May 6, 2009 at 9:32 AM, Ralf Hemmecke r...@hemmecke.de wrote:
On 05/06/2009 07:50 AM, William Stein wrote:
On Tue, May 5, 2009 at 3:25 PM, Brian Granger ellisonbg@gmail.com
wrote:
Hi,
I have a question about Sage and the GPL. Here is the main question..
IF I write code in a
On May 6, 4:41 pm, kcrisman kcris...@gmail.com wrote:
Wow, I really missed quite a thread.
So is there any final consensus on this? Is the following Sage
program automatically GPL?
{{{
2+2
}}}
Or only in the following form?
{{{
Integer(2)+Integer(2)
}}}
Technically, what's the
On May 6, 2009, at 12:05 PM, Vinzent Steinberg wrote:
On May 6, 4:41 pm, kcrisman kcris...@gmail.com wrote:
Wow, I really missed quite a thread.
So is there any final consensus on this? Is the following Sage
program automatically GPL?
{{{
2+2
}}}
Or only in the following form?
On Wed, May 6, 2009 at 10:37 AM, Tim Lahey tim.la...@gmail.com wrote:
On May 6, 2009, at 12:05 PM, Vinzent Steinberg wrote:
On May 6, 4:41 pm, kcrisman kcris...@gmail.com wrote:
Wow, I really missed quite a thread.
So is there any final consensus on this? Is the following Sage
program
On May 6, 2009, at 10:37 AM, Tim Lahey wrote:
Doesn't both Maple and Mathematica make use of GMP? I thought they
did.
They aren't licensed under the GPL.
GMP is LGPL, not GPL. If what Ralf said were correct (which it
isn't), there would be no need for an LGPL at all.
- Robert
On May 6, 10:41 am, kcrisman kcris...@gmail.com wrote:
So is there any final consensus on this? Is the following Sage
program automatically GPL?
{{{
2+2
}}}
Or only in the following form?
{{{
Integer(2)+Integer(2)
}}}
Please no flames! I only wanted to know if there was a
On May 6, 2009, at 11:01 AM, David Harvey wrote:
On May 6, 10:41 am, kcrisman kcris...@gmail.com wrote:
So is there any final consensus on this? Is the following Sage
program automatically GPL?
{{{
2+2
}}}
Or only in the following form?
{{{
Integer(2)+Integer(2)
}}}
Please no
On 05/06/2009 06:47 PM, William Stein wrote:
On Wed, May 6, 2009 at 9:32 AM, Ralf Hemmecke r...@hemmecke.de wrote:
On 05/06/2009 07:50 AM, William Stein wrote:
On Tue, May 5, 2009 at 3:25 PM, Brian Granger ellisonbg@gmail.com
wrote:
Hi,
I have a question about Sage and the GPL.
On May 6, 10:27 pm, Ralf Hemmecke r...@hemmecke.de wrote:
But if it comes to Ondrej's code, I think it is ridiculous if it were
forced to be under GPL. Just suppose Ondrej had mistyped his text so
that it looked like
---
from asge.all import x
print x**2
---
(Note it's asge not
On 05/06/2009 07:44 PM, Robert Bradshaw wrote:
On May 6, 2009, at 10:37 AM, Tim Lahey wrote:
Doesn't both Maple and Mathematica make use of GMP? I thought they
did.
They aren't licensed under the GPL.
GMP is LGPL, not GPL. If what Ralf said were correct (which it
isn't), there would
On May 6, 2009, at 12:09 AM, mabshoff wrote:
Note that any GPLed codebase like Singular or pari would also be viral
to high level code and I cannot believe that this is the way the GPL
is intended. Anything using readline, i.e. IPython, would be infected,
too, and that goes way too far IMHO
On May 6, 5:43 pm, Ivan Andrus g...@macmail.com wrote:
On May 6, 2009, at 12:09 AM, mabshoff wrote:
Note that any GPLed codebase like Singular or pari would also be viral
to high level code and I cannot believe that this is the way the GPL
is intended. Anything using readline, i.e.
Em Qua, 2009-05-06 às 00:29 -0700, William Stein escreveu:
On Tue, May 5, 2009 at 11:57 PM, Robert Bradshaw
rober...@math.washington.edu wrote:
What about
publishing (collections of) worksheets under the CC license? Code
snippets in books? Are your books GPL compatible? (Maybe you could
On Tue, May 5, 2009 at 6:25 PM, Brian Granger ellisonbg@gmail.com 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
On May 5, 3:25 pm, Brian Granger ellisonbg@gmail.com wrote:
IF I write code in a Sage notebook, AND I redistribute the code, do I
need to release my code under the GPL?
The Sage worksheet at
http://abstract.ups.edu/sage-aata.html
contains Sage code that was not written in a notebook.
On Tue, May 5, 2009 at 7:32 PM, Brian Granger ellisonbg@gmail.com wrote:
At a conference in the last year, one of the Sage developers was asked
this question, and their answer was...
You can do whatever you want with your code, you don't have to
release it under the GPL
I'm pretty
The Sage worksheet at
http://abstract.ups.edu/sage-aata.html
contains Sage code that was not written in a notebook. While that
could be obvious if you actually looked at the file, technically I
think there is no way to prove just where I wrote it - notebook or
not.
Regardless of the how
Brian Granger wrote:
The Sage worksheet at
http://abstract.ups.edu/sage-aata.html
contains Sage code that was not written in a notebook. While that
could be obvious if you actually looked at the file, technically I
think there is no way to prove just where I wrote it - notebook or
not.
On Tue, May 5, 2009 at 9:33 PM, Brian Granger ellisonbg@gmail.com wrote:
The Sage worksheet at
http://abstract.ups.edu/sage-aata.html
contains Sage code that was not written in a notebook. While that
could be obvious if you actually looked at the file, technically I
think there is no
On May 5, 2009, at 6:33 PM, Brian Granger wrote:
The Sage worksheet at
http://abstract.ups.edu/sage-aata.html
contains Sage code that was not written in a notebook. While that
could be obvious if you actually looked at the file, technically I
think there is no way to prove just where I
How is it a derived work of Sage? That argument seems to lead to the
conclusion that my C code would be considered a derived work of GCC.
Your GCC compiled code is a derived work and that (in my
understanding) is why there exists the so called runtime exception
to the GPL that covers this
Brian,
A sage worksheet is no more a derived work of Sage than a jpeg would
be a derived work of Photoshop/GIMP or a .doc file would be a derived
work of MS Office or OpenOffice.
I disagree. A jpeg or .doc file is not source code in any sense of
the word, thus the GPL is completely
On Tue, May 5, 2009 at 10:56 PM, Brian Granger ellisonbg@gmail.com wrote:
How is it a derived work of Sage? That argument seems to lead to the
conclusion that my C code would be considered a derived work of GCC.
Your GCC compiled code is a derived work and that (in my
understanding) is
Sage functions in a simailr way that GIMP does. If I create an image in
GIMP from scratch then I own the copyright to that image. The license of GIMP,
which functions as an editor, a viewer, has it's own plugins for
postprocessing, ...
have nothing to do with it.
GIMP is written in a
On Tue, May 5, 2009 at 11:05 PM, Brian Granger ellisonbg@gmail.com wrote:
The FSF asserts that if I develop code that merely links to GPL
software (static or dynamic), my code is bound by the GPL. I don't
have to modify the GPL software and I don't even have to distribute
it.
When you
The runtime exception is to allow the use of the gcc runtime, which is
a library gcc links to your code when you need to produce a program
which runs. AFAICT, if you replaced the gcc runtime with something
else, or you just used the object files compiled by gcc (no linking),
you wouldn't
On Tue, May 5, 2009 at 7:18 PM, Brian Granger ellisonbg@gmail.com wrote:
The runtime exception is to allow the use of the gcc runtime, which is
a library gcc links to your code when you need to produce a program
which runs. AFAICT, if you replaced the gcc runtime with something
else, or
Ondrej Certik wrote:
On Tue, May 5, 2009 at 7:18 PM, Brian Granger ellisonbg@gmail.com wrote:
The runtime exception is to allow the use of the gcc runtime, which is
a library gcc links to your code when you need to produce a program
which runs. AFAICT, if you replaced the gcc runtime with
Obviously everyone understands this differently. But I thought that if
I have a script A:
---
from sage.all import x
print x**2
---
Then my script has to be GPL, because it is dynamically loading a GPL
library (without any runtime exception) *and* my script doesn't work
without
Ondrej,
Caveat: my understanding of US copyright law and software licenses.
When you create something (book, photo, program) you automatically
have a copyright in/on that work. You may control the creation of
copies. With a GPL/GFDL license you explicitly grant others further
freedoms -
I claim this is still silly.
Then I think you think the GPL is silly and I agree with you :-)
Did you actually load Sage to write the
above two lines? Or did you just type two lines in your email program?
(My guess is the latter). So why in the world would the license for
Sage affect
When you create something (book, photo, program) you automatically
have a copyright in/on that work.
Yep.
You may control the creation of
copies. With a GPL/GFDL license you explicitly grant others further
freedoms - someone may make unlimited copies. They may make
modifications. BUT,
On Tue, May 5, 2009 at 11:48 PM, Brian Granger ellisonbg@gmail.com 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 gives (when run, it dynamically links to
On Tue, May 5, 2009 at 10:48 PM, Brian Granger ellisonbg@gmail.com wrote:
When you create something (book, photo, program) you automatically
have a copyright in/on that work.
Yep.
You may control the creation of
copies. With a GPL/GFDL license you explicitly grant others further
On Tue, May 5, 2009 at 7:56 PM, Gonzalo Tornaria
torna...@math.utexas.edu wrote:
On Tue, May 5, 2009 at 11:48 PM, Brian Granger ellisonbg@gmail.com
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
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
On Tue, May 5, 2009 at 10:13 PM, Brian Granger ellisonbg@gmail.com 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
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, you
On Wed, May 6, 2009 at 12:23 AM, Brian Granger ellisonbg@gmail.com 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:
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 OSI) or
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 ellisonbg@gmail.com 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
98 matches
Mail list logo
