On 9/23/07, Alec Mihailovs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > GPLv2 and GPLv3 are actually incompatible. You might think > > GPLvN should be compatible with GPLv(N-1) but that isnt the case here. > > At the moment, I think SAGE cannot be released under GPLv3. > > Ideally, the alternative to M* CASes should be released under more > permissive license, such as MIT or new BSD. But the current situation seems > to be far from ideal :(
This is only perhaps ideal from the typical end user's point of view. The GPL-style license is greatly preferred over the BSD/MIT as the license for Sage by most Sage developers (this was discussed a lot at Sage Days 2). In fact, several of the top contributors to Sage have explicitly said they would not contribute to Sage if it were not licensed under the GPL. It's very important to these people, who put a massive amount of their time into Sage, that the code the write not just be copied into Mathematica/Maple/Magma, etc., and sold for profit, improved, etc., with nothing given in return. > From other point of view, Python, for instance, has its own license. SAGE, > probably, could be licensed under its own license, too (including the > possibility of linking to both LGPL2 and LGPL3). > Why not? That is not possible because Sage is derived from GPL'd programs, hence it must be licensed under the GPL. A condition of the GPL is the programs derived from the GPL must be licensed under the GPL. In fact, it is impossible to combine GPLv2 only and LGPLv3 only code in they same project, under any license. -- 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/ -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
