On Mon, Jun 22, 2009 at 1:42 AM, Gonzalo Tornaria<torna...@math.utexas.edu> wrote: > > On Sun, Jun 21, 2009 at 10:54 AM, William Stein<wst...@gmail.com> wrote: >> 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 list http://groups.google.com/group/sage-flame >> where flaming is encouraged. > > At some point in time, Sage included code which was GPLv2 only. > Authors were requested to extend their license to be GPLv2+, to allow > the choice of the GPLv3. It seems fair to request that GPL v3 code be > extended to GPLv2+, to allow the choice of the GPLv2. > > Best, Gonzalo
For individual code that makes good sense. For some libraries, that doesn't work in the same way in practice. For example, if I were to ask the FSF to relicense GMP, GSL and GNUtls as GPLv2+ using the above argument, I suspect they wouldn't. William -- -- William Stein Associate Professor of Mathematics University of Washington http://wstein.org --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
