On Dec 14, 10:10 pm, Dima Pasechnik <dimp...@gmail.com> wrote: > certainly, I can relicense whatever was under v3 to v2, if needed.
the original is now under GPLv2. So you can go ahead and put your code under v2, as well. Dima > > On Dec 14, 10:00 pm, Keshav Kini <keshav.k...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > Hi Minh, > > > On Dec 14, 9:07 pm, Minh Nguyen <nguyenmi...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > [...] > > > Your patch adds the following source files to the Sage library: > > > > * STABIL.c > > > * STABIL.h > > > > both of which are explicitly licensed under the terms of GPLv3. A > > > policy of the Sage project is to include only code licensed under the > > > terms of the GPLv2+ in the Sage library. That means that any code that > > > goes into the Sage library must be covered by the GPL version 2 or any > > > later version, but not explicitly version 3. Here are some options I > > > can think of to remedy the situation: > > > > (1) Relicense your C source files under the terms of the GPLv2+, after > > > which you should be able to get your C source files into the Sage > > > library. > > > That would be fine with me, but the original implementation by Dmitrii > > Pasechnik and Luitpold Babel is licensed under GPLv3+, and while my > > code doesn't technically use any lines from the original > > implementation, it borrows heavily from the organizational structure > > (after all, it uses the same algorithm), so if I understand correctly > > it would be improper to relicense my own code, even if the original > > authors permitted it - even the original authors cannot now relicense > > their GPLv3+ code as GPLv2. (Please correct me if this understanding > > is incorrect.) > > > > (2) Create a Sage package (also known as an spkg) and write an > > > interface to your spkg. Anything in the interface that is licensed > > > under GPLv2+ can be included in the Sage library. For everything else, > > > you need to include them in your spkg. See this [1] from sage-devel on > > > options for packaging your code so that the spkg can be distributed > > > with Sage. > > > I actually have created an spkg as well, which works fine. However, > > distributing a mere two functions consisting of less than 40 KB of > > code seemed like sort of a waste, especially considering that the user > > would then need to import a base-level package "wlrefine" instead of > > immediately being able to use it. Or is that what you meant by > > "writing an interface to" the the spkg? Just putting a .py file in > > $SAGE_ROOT/devel/sage/sage/graphs/ that loads the module from the > > spkg? I notice that you didn't list the .pyx file the patch also adds > > (wlrefine.pyx) - I guess that could be called an "interface" to the C > > code. Is that what you mean? > > > > > There is a comment in STABIL.c which says something about line > > > > continuation and doctests, but this should hopefully be fixed by my > > > > patch at trac #10458 (http://trac.sagemath.org/sage_trac/ticket/10458 > > > > ). > > > > See the following sage-devel thread for discussion on this matter: > > > >https://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel/browse_thread/thread/d6125... > > > Yes, thanks for publicizing my trac ticket! :) > > > Yours, > > Keshav -- To post to this group, send an email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to sage-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel URL: http://www.sagemath.org
