On 9/23/07, Joel B. Mohler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > The clam that GPLv3 forbids DRM schemes is called a "myth" by Ed Burnette
> > http://blogs.zdnet.com/Burnette/?p=354
> > I think early drafts of GPLv3 were more anti-DRm than the final draft.
>
> I agree with his interpretation of the paragraph he quoted, but he didn't
> quote the paragraph I was concerned about. The first sentence of section 3
> is what bothers me: "No covered work shall be deemed part of an effective
> technological measure ...". Maybe I need to read these WIPO documents before
> I start spewing FUD.
>
> And, yes, it is *much* improved over earlier versions of v3 ... they were out
> of hand.
>
> > > I very much do not like the blanket "or later version" scheme for dealing
> > > with the GPL. This, to me, gives the FSF a blank check for whatever in
> > > GPLv4, and after seeing GPLv3, I trust them even less than I used to.
> >
> > Is "GPLv2 or GPLv3 (your preference)" better?
>
> Yes, I would consider that better, but it sort of seems like it punts on the
> actual issue. I guess I'm not really happy with any of the options so I
> don't actually have an opinion.
The *only* options I can think of right now are:
(1) Stick with GPLv2 and *fork* every FSF project Sage depends on:
* GMP
* GSL
* GNUtls (openssl replacement)
Anything else?
(2) Change the Sage license to GPLv2 or later, and get clarification
about the same issue from the Singular developers.
More details:
(1) Make a stand and stick with GPLv2. This will mean in the long
run that we will have to FORK, never ever again ship updated
versions of, or remove dependence on every FSF-owned project.
This is definitely possible, since the projects are currently very
mature:
* GSL -- they just released GSL v1.10 under GPLv3 only (sage
currently includes GSL v1.9),
* GMP -- they just released GMP v4.2.2 under GPLv3 only (sage
currently includes on GMP v4.2.1),
It appears that a huge number of FSF/GNU projects are having
new releases under GPLv3 *only* right now (not GPLv2 or later).
I.e., FSF is very aggressively pushing their license in a technical sense.
(2) We change the Sage license to GPLv2 or later, and change or
eliminate all components of Sage that are GPL v2 only.
As far as I can tell Singular is the only 3rd party component of
Sage that is in fact clearly GPL v2 only. Please correct me if I'm
wrong about that.
----
I think both options are viable, since I suspect that the only projects
Sage uses that will switch to GPLv3 only are the FSF projects -- most
projects will just stick with "GPLv2 or greater". Option (1) means more
work for us, though GSL is pretty much *done* -- it hasn't changed
much in years, and likewise GMP hasn't had anything interesting
happen release-wise in nearly 2 years. (The most interesting GMP work has
been outside the GMP project.)
If you can think of a genuinely viable third option, or have strong
feelings about which of 1 or 2 is better, now is the time to speak
up. I have put off this GPLv3 license discussion repeatedly during
the last year when it came up. But now it can't be ignored anymore.
I greatly value everybody's feedback.
-- William
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
To post to this group, send email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel
URLs: http://sage.scipy.org/sage/ and http://modular.math.washington.edu/sage/
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
