On Apr 12, 1:18 pm, Bill Hart <goodwillh...@googlemail.com> wrote: > On 12 April 2010 13:06, Cactus <rieman...@googlemail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Apr 12, 11:18 am, Pierre Joye <pierre....@gmail.com> wrote: > >> hi, > > >> On Fri, Apr 9, 2010 at 2:55 PM, Bill Hart <goodwillh...@googlemail.com> > >> wrote: > >> > On 9 April 2010 13:23, Marc <marc.gli...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> >> Hello, > > >> >> I am not sure I understand what is going on with MPIR. When the fork > >> >> happened, 2 of the main stated goals where: > >> >> 1) LGPL2 (required for sage+microsoft) > >> >> --> MPIR is now LGPL3+ only > > >> > Correct. Will this create any issues for you? > > >> What are the appealing reasons for this move given one of the initial > >> arguments for mpir (gmp license changes)? > > > In my view the main reasons for doing this are: > > > (a) many developers of cutting edge multiple precision > > algorithms have decided to publish code with a v3+ > > license > > (b) the majority of MPIR users want 'drop in' > > compatibility with GMP, which has an LGPL > > v3+ license. > > > To meet these needs while keeping a v2+ license would require > > a massive ongoing development effort to re-implement v3+ code > > with a v2+ license. > > > Since there is no relaistic prospect of such development effort > > being found, we either have to move to an LGPL v3+ license or > > stay with v2+ and accept that MPIR will not be GMP compatible > > and will not have the cutting edge performance offerred by v3+ > > developers. > > >> Readinghttp://www.gnu.org/licenses/lgpl.html, I really wonder if this > >> is a good move. I don't feel comfortable to add the GPL license to the > >> PHP distribution (see the section 3b, 4b and 4c) as the PHP license is > >> not compatible with the GPL. Things can get worst as we are testing > >> mpir to be used with php engine for large integers related operations. > > > It's not ideal - I would call this license change 'the least worst > > option'. > > > In short, continuing to offer a state of the art LGPL v2+ licensed > > multiple precision library will require a large increase in the > > MPIR developer community. > > >> I also have concerns about the legal aspects of the lgpl v3. I know > >> that the v2 can be used safely but I've a bad feeling about the v3. > >> Does anyone have more in depth details about the actual changes > >> between the two? > > > This seems to be a difficult issue with lawyers in different > > organisations taking different views. > > > I know of companies who intend to use LGPL v3+ licensed code in > > commercial software products without the latter becoming subject > > to GPL licensing. But I also know of companies who think this is > > not possible. > > Yes, I can independently confirm that come companies are extremely > suspicious of the motivations. > > In fact, I recently thought very hard about whether I should > personally be licensing all my code contributions with an MIT or BSD > license. The reason is that companies can use this for whatever they > please and then have a big incentive to fund such work. (I don't need > funding personally, but I know numerous people who could work full > time on MPIR if only they could be funded to do it.) > > I haven't been able to bring myself to actually make such a radical > change. The issue is that there is a history of companies in my field > (mathematics) of taking mathematical code and making it closed source > so that we cannot learn from their research. Of course if GMP and MPIR > had been GPL and not LGPL right from the start, then this could never > have happened. > > However, funding of Open Source work remains a huge problem. I > recently took a very close look at the model the Haiku operating > system is using to fund their contributors. They use an MIT license. > > Of course MPIR *cannot* switch to a more permissive license, as it is > based on GMP. So this is a completely separate issue though related > issue.
In my view GMP and MPIR are a total mess in software engineering terms and I would hence like nothing beeter than to participate in the development of a new, well structured multiple precision library under aa open source license that provided for commercial use. The number of comapnies who could benefit from this is very large and the individual cost would be small but we have no obvious way of orchestrating this. > It seems to me we have the worst of all worlds. We aren't funded, due > to our code being regarded with suspicion by companies who fear we are > trying to destroy them. And at the same time companies are free to > build their closed source products on top of our Open Source library. > Some (not all) of those companies, could definitely afford to fund a > project like MPIR, but wont. I agree. We could build a first class BSD licensed multiple precision library given modest sponsorsship. But while some major companies (not all) feel they can exploit open source developers whilst making no contributions to the development community in return, its hard to see this happening. Brian -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "mpir-devel" group. To post to this group, send email to mpir-de...@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to mpir-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/mpir-devel?hl=en.
