I never said it'd hurt to ask again. Heck, I'd even send the email. As far as I know, Robert Miller and I are the only people who have read the source of NICE, and we're both in industry now. I need faster isomorphism tests than Sage provides, and neither of us has made any improvements to that code for years. Inclusion of nauty would be awesome.
To clarify: what I'm uncomfortable with is the statement "you can ignore it [for Sage]". If that means that we can _delete_ the restriction from his license file, then that's great and a complete raw email message might hold up in court. If it means that we are expected to ship code containing a GPL-incompatible license, that sounds like pretty shaky ground from my lay-understanding: his statement implies (to me) that he does not recognize that the GPL is viral (or does not recognize that Sage is under the GPL). Best to make sure he knows what he's getting into. On Tue, Jun 30, 2015 at 12:15 PM, William Stein <wst...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Tue, Jun 30, 2015 at 11:28 AM, Tom Boothby <tomas.boot...@gmail.com> wrote: >> On Tue, Jun 30, 2015 at 11:12 AM, Jori Mäntysalo <jori.mantys...@uta.fi> >> wrote: >> >>> Duh. Then what he means when saying that we can ignore it for incorporation >>> into Sage? >> >> >> Only he can clarify that. If he releases the source under a >> GPL-compatible license, then we have evidence that he means what he >> says. His verbal permission for us to include GPL-incompatible code >> into our source tree does not constitute sound legal advice. > > The trac ticket has a claim that there is an "in writing" email: > > XX Changed 29 hours ago by jdemeyer; Replying to jmantysalo: > XX I asked from Brendan McKay? "Nauty.h contains copyright > XX with 'exception of sale for profit or application with nontrivial military > XX significance.' Does this apply to whole package?" and he > XX answered: "It applies to all of the nauty files, but for > XX incorporation into Sage you can ignore it. > XX > Can you give the complete contents of this email exchange with McKay? > > If we can get the complete raw email message (including headers), and > maybe get him to further confirm it, with him confirming that he > understands what including code with Sage means (namely that it is > GPLv3+'d), then that would work. > > That's the whole point of this discussion -- the OP is asking for > somebody to volunteer to write to McKay to *further* clarify his > already-given permission. The collective "guess" in this thread seems > to be that when McKay realizes what "incorporation into Sage" implies > (namely his code is then GPLv3+), he will change his mind. > > Despite what Tom says, I think it can't hurt to ask again. > > -- William > > > -- > William (http://wstein.org) > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "sage-devel" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to sage-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. > To post to this group, send email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com. > Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "sage-devel" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to sage-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
