* Marcus Better <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [070601 15:12]:
> Bernhard R. Link wrote:
> >> IIRC Singular has licensing restrictions (requires citing the authors) so
> >> I don't think it can go in main.
> >
> > I don't think that is part of the license.
>
> I don't know, but I think that at least a clari
Bernhard R. Link wrote:
>> IIRC Singular has licensing restrictions (requires citing the authors) so
>> I don't think it can go in main.
>
> I don't think that is part of the license.
I don't know, but I think that at least a clarification from the authors is
needed. Citing the license [1]:
"Thi
* Marcus Better <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [070530 13:43]:
> Jordi Gutierrez Hermoso wrote:
> > mathematical pieces of software for Debian, beginning with surf,
> > Singular's plotting engine, followed by Singular itself,
>
> IIRC Singular has licensing restrictions (requires citing the authors) so I
> do
On Thursday 31 May 2007 19:54, Charles Plessy wrote:
> As a personal point of view, I would never pacakge a 4-clause licenced
> software. It just means that the advertisement clause would be
> deliberately violated in so many cases, I do not want to take that
> responsibility. Actually, I prepared
Matthew Palmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Thu, May 31, 2007 at 06:01:53PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
>> Why? I don't see anything in the DFSG that says that licenses may not
>> require citing authors, and in fact many DFSG-free licenses require
>> that one preserve copyright statements or a
Le Thu, May 31, 2007 at 06:42:26PM -0700, Russ Allbery a écrit :
> Charles Plessy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > I see it as violating clause 6:
>
> > No Discrimination Against Fields of Endeavor
>
> > The license must not restrict anyone from making use of the program in a
> > specific f
On Thu, May 31, 2007 at 06:01:53PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Charles Plessy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > It is exactly because it is anyway wrong to not cite authors that it is
> > better to leave the requirement out of the licence. When we publish
> > scientific articles, we do not put a
On Thu, 31 May 2007, Russ Allbery wrote:
> So you believe the four-clause BSD license violates the DFSG? It
> contains the clause:
>
> * 3. All advertising materials mentioning features or use of this software
> *must display the following acknowledgement:
> * This product includes softwa
Russ Allbery <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I believe this is not the interpretation being applied by the
> ftpmasters, who are the final authorities on licenses in Debian. The
> four-clause BSD license is not a particularly good idea, but I believe
> it's always been considered DFSG-free.
Here a
Charles Plessy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I see it as violating clause 6:
> No Discrimination Against Fields of Endeavor
> The license must not restrict anyone from making use of the program in a
> specific field of endeavor. For example, it may not restrict the program
> from being used
Le Thu, May 31, 2007 at 06:01:53PM -0700, Russ Allbery a écrit :
> Charles Plessy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > It is exactly because it is anyway wrong to not cite authors that it is
> > better to leave the requirement out of the licence. When we publish
> > scientific articles, we do not put
Charles Plessy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> It is exactly because it is anyway wrong to not cite authors that it is
> better to leave the requirement out of the licence. When we publish
> scientific articles, we do not put a disclaimer on the top saying "if
> you read this article, you must prope
Le Thu, May 31, 2007 at 12:06:48PM -0500, Jordi Gutierrez Hermoso a écrit :
> On 30/05/07, Marcus Better <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >IIRC Singular has licensing restrictions (requires citing the authors) so I
> >don't think it can go in main.
>
> What's wrong with citing authors? If you publish
On 30/05/07, Marcus Better <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
IIRC Singular has licensing restrictions (requires citing the authors) so I
don't think it can go in main.
What's wrong with citing authors? If you publish in a journal
something for which you used Singular, you have to say so. This is
stand
Jordi Gutierrez Hermoso wrote:
> mathematical pieces of software for Debian, beginning with surf,
> Singular's plotting engine, followed by Singular itself,
IIRC Singular has licensing restrictions (requires citing the authors) so I
don't think it can go in main.
Marcus
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, ema
* Jordi Gutierrez Hermoso <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [070529 21:37]:
> >As Bernard suggested, a starting point could be packaging those
> >programs that SAGE use and aren't yet in Debian: Singular, MWRank,
> >NTL and Linbox, but there could be more.
I think one already quite big task is already NTL. (as
The following is a relevant discussion with William Stein on packaging
SAGE for Debian.
- Jordi G. H.
-- Forwarded message --
From: William Stein <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: 29-May-2007 15:43
Subject: Re: Do you patch the upstream components of SAGE?
To: Jordi Gutierrez Hermoso <[E
On Tuesday 29 May 2007 12:57, Richard Laager wrote:
> Without knowing anything about the specifics... then the changes need to
> be modified into something suitable.
One idea might be to create a lib that uses the octave lib and allows SAGE to
do what it needs to do instead of modifying octave di
Oy. Top-posting isn't something I expect in Debian lists, even if
Gmail encourages it. ;-)
On 29/05/07, Javier Merino <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Hi, I'm also interested in packaging sage.
Cool. I've been meaning for the longest time to package a number of
mathematical pieces of software for De
On Tue, 2007-05-29 at 13:48 -0500, Jordi Gutierrez Hermoso wrote:
> On 29/05/07, Paul Wise <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Find out if the SAGE developers changes to octave/etc are useful to
> > people who use octave/etc without using SAGE, if so, go the first
> > route.
>
> According to William St
On 29/05/07, Paul Wise <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Find out if the SAGE developers changes to octave/etc are useful to
people who use octave/etc without using SAGE, if so, go the first
route.
According to William Stein (SAGE's lead developer), a lot of those
changes will probably be rejected ups
On Monday 28 May 2007 17:19, Jordi Gutierrez Hermoso wrote:
> Is there anything that can be done about this? Packaging a different
> version of Octave with a _SAGE version number or whatever seems
> ridiculous. Is SAGE unpackageable or should a DD be in charge of
> modifying SAGE sufficiently in or
* Jordi Gutierrez Hermoso <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [070529 01:30]:
> Unfortunately, packaging it for Debian looks like a momentuous task.
> SAGE, as it stands right now, distributes its own versions of a number
> of other free software packages that are already in Debian, e.g.
> Maxima and Octave (and m
On 5/29/07, Jordi Gutierrez Hermoso <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Unfortunately, packaging it for Debian looks like a momentuous task.
SAGE, as it stands right now, distributes its own versions of a number
of other free software packages that are already in Debian
I'd suggest finding out what tho
On Mon, 28 May 2007 18:19:20 -0500
"Jordi Gutierrez Hermoso" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Unfortunately, packaging it for Debian looks like a momentuous task.
You should seek to create a team to manage large packages.
> SAGE, as it stands right now, distributes its own versions of a number
> of
SAGE is quite possibly the most promising free software package out
there for general-purpose mathematics:
http://www.sagemath.org
Unfortunately, packaging it for Debian looks like a momentuous task.
SAGE, as it stands right now, distributes its own versions of a number
of other free softwar
26 matches
Mail list logo
