On 21 Jun., 15:54, William Stein <wst...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 2009/6/21 Bjarke Hammersholt Roune <bjarke.ro...@gmail.com>:
>
>
>
> > I quote from
>
> > http://www.sagemath.org/doc/developer/inclusion.html
>
> > which is about the inclusion procedure for new packages. The first
> > requirement is written as:
>
> > "The license must be a GPL version 2+ compatible license. (This will
> > be publicly revisited around Jan 15, 2009.)"
>
> > Whatever was decided or not decided around Jan 15, the date or the
> > statement is in need of being updated.
>
> The GPL v2+ restriction wasn't publicly revisited. Therefore, let's
> publicly revisit it.
>
> Does anybody who cares a lot have a strong opinion on whether Sage
> should start allowing in new libraries that are licensed GPLv3+? If
> so, why? Please, no flamebait, unless you post only to the
> sage-flame mailing listhttp://groups.google.com/group/sage-flame
> where flaming is encouraged.
>
> -- William
We can't hold back time, so sooner or later, some new libraries will
appear that are GPLv3+, and which one would like to have in Sage, or
some of the libraries present in Sage-4.0.2 will switch to GPLv3+. On
the other hand, currently "all is fine". My proposal therefore is the
following:
Let's set up a regular time frame to publicly revisit the Sage
licensing, say in yearly intervals.
For this year, I'd vote to stay with the current state. But let's
revisit this again in mid-2010.
Cheers,
gsw
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
To post to this group, send email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
sage-devel-unsubscr...@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel
URLs: http://www.sagemath.org
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
