Looks like the license change is done. http://code.google.com/p/glumpy/source/detail?r=79a5429ef1d5c57c5f97276bb39340ed1b808f9e
On Tue, Jan 26, 2010 at 5:41 AM, Fernando Perez <fperez....@gmail.com> wrote: > Hi Nicolas, > > On Mon, Jan 25, 2010 at 2:46 AM, Nicolas Rougier > <nicolas.roug...@loria.fr> wrote: >> >> >> Hello, >> >> This is an update about glumpy, a fast-OpenGL based numpy visualization. >> I modified the code such that the only dependencies are PyOpenGL and >> IPython (for interactive sessions). You will also need matplotlib and >> scipy for some demos. >> >> Sources: hg clone http://glumpy.googlecode.com/hg/ glumpy >> No installation required, you can run all demos inplace. >> >> Homepage: http://code.google.com/p/glumpy/ > > This is great, and it would be very cool to have it updated to the new > code we're now landing in ipython with a much cleaner internal API > (finally :) Have you had a chance to look at the code in my trunk-dev > branch? > > https://code.launchpad.net/~fdo.perez/ipython/trunk-dev > > Brian finished a large review of it and we just had a chance to go > over his feedback directly, so there's now one more round of reviews > to do (once he applies the changes from our discussion) and this > should become trunk very soon. The apis are much cleaner, this is the > big cleanup I told you about last year, and now we're getting to the > point where having multiple ipython frontends is a very realistic > prospect. > > Unfortunately we won't be able to use your code directly in IPython as > it stands, since the GPL provisions in it would require us to GPL all > of IPython to make use of any of it directly in IPython. Your code > uses iptyhon, numpy, matplotlib and scipy (in some demos), which > amounts to hundreds of thousands of lines of code; here are the > sloccount outputs from their respective trunks: > > IPython > Totals grouped by language (dominant language first): > python: 47357 (99.24%) > lisp: 262 (0.55%) > sh: 62 (0.13%) > objc: 37 (0.08%) > > > Numpy > Totals grouped by language (dominant language first): > ansic: 152950 (67.19%) > python: 73188 (32.15%) > cpp: 828 (0.36%) > fortran: 298 (0.13%) > sh: 156 (0.07%) > pascal: 120 (0.05%) > f90: 97 (0.04%) > > Matplotlib > Totals grouped by language (dominant language first): > python: 83290 (52.64%) > cpp: 68212 (43.11%) > objc: 4517 (2.85%) > ansic: 2149 (1.36%) > sh: 69 (0.04%) > > Scipy > Totals grouped by language (dominant language first): > cpp: 220149 (48.35%) > fortran: 87240 (19.16%) > python: 79164 (17.38%) > ansic: 68746 (15.10%) > sh: 61 (0.01%) > > Glumpy: > Totals grouped by language (dominant language first): > python: 3751 (100.00%) > > We're looking at ~300.000 lines of python alone in these tools. It's > unfortunately not realistic for us to consider GPL-ing them in order > to incorporate glumpy into the core set; it would be fantastic if you > were willing to consider licensing your code under a license that is > compatible with the body of work you are building on top of. > > You are obviously free to choose your license as you see fit, and end > users (myself included) will be always able to use glumpy along with > ipython, numpy, matplotlib and scipy. So *users* get all of the > benefit of your contribution, and for that I am the first to be > delighted and grateful that you've put your code out there. > > But as it stands, your code builds on close to half a million lines of > other code which can not benefit back from your contributions. If you > consider licensing glumpy to be compatible with ipython, numpy and > matplotlib, it would be possible to incorporate your ideas back into > those projects: perhaps in some places the right solution would be to > fix our own designs to better provide what glumpy needs, in other > cases we may find fixes you've made fit better upstream, etc. > > But this kind of collaboration will not be possible as long as glumpy > can benefit from our tools but our codes are not allowed to benefit > from glumpy (without changing licenses, which isn't going to happen). > > I hope you consider this from our perspective and in the most friendly > and open manner: I completely respect your right to license your own > code as you see fit (I've seen people put out GPL 'projects' that > effectively consist of 3 lines that import IPython and make a function > call, and that's OK too, and allowed by the license I chose to use). > The only reason I ask you is because I think your tool is very > interesting, and it would ultimately lead to a much more productive > relationship with ipython, numpy and matplotlib if it could be a > collaboration instead of a one-way benefit. > > Best regards, > > Fernando. > _______________________________________________ > NumPy-Discussion mailing list > NumPy-Discussion@scipy.org > http://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion > -- Rohit Garg http://rpg-314.blogspot.com/ Senior Undergraduate Department of Physics Indian Institute of Technology Bombay _______________________________________________ NumPy-Discussion mailing list NumPy-Discussion@scipy.org http://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion