On Tue, May 4, 2010 at 12:43 PM, Sergey Bochkanov
wrote:
> Hello, Gonzalo.
>
> You wrote 3 мая 2010 г., 20:46:41:
>
>> Although I'm more of a GPL (v2) type, and I wouldn't write BSD code
>> unless I had a very good reason, I could consider relicensing some
>> interface code like this.
>> I've actu
Hello, Gonzalo.
You wrote 3 мая 2010 г., 20:46:41:
> Although I'm more of a GPL (v2) type, and I wouldn't write BSD code
> unless I had a very good reason, I could consider relicensing some
> interface code like this.
> I've actually relicensed this code to LGPL v2+ (for gmpy), but I'm not
> sure
On 4 May 2010 20:26, Antony Vennard wrote:
> Well... you know what I mean. Let me put it another way:
>
> the issue was corrected and current distributions and licenses are all
> correct.
>
> Or:
>
> I cannot see any evidence of mpir distributed tarballs licensed as
> lgplv2+ containing lgplv3+ co
Well... you know what I mean. Let me put it another way:
the issue was corrected and current distributions and licenses are all
correct.
Or:
I cannot see any evidence of mpir distributed tarballs licensed as
lgplv2+ containing lgplv3+ code.
Antony
On 05/04/2010 08:22 PM, Bill Hart wrote:
> "No
"Now rectified"? The tarballs have not changed since Oct/Nov last year!
But yeah, otherwise it is a fair assessment.
On 4 May 2010 20:12, Antony Vennard wrote:
> Ok thanks, sorry, I wasn't certain the issues were tarball-only so I
> looked in svn.
>
> I have looked at the tarballs also and can c
Ok thanks, sorry, I wasn't certain the issues were tarball-only so I
looked in svn.
I have looked at the tarballs also and can confirm the same findings as
Bill. Certainly, it seems the code being distributed is being done so in
the correct manner.
This would seem to show that the issue is now re
Thanks. The issues you raise:
1) The mpir-parallel svn branch contains LGPL v3+ code. However, this
was branched from MPIR 2.0.0, which is already LGPL v3+, so this is
absolutely fine.
2) Brian Gladman's version of mpf/set_str.c contains some code the
same as the version in GMP 5. This is because
Let's just clarify this bit shall we, just in case:
The below should read "mpir-trunk" uses a small number of lgplv3+
patches and is distributed as lgplv3+. By same license, I meant the same
license as the relevant patches.
Just so we are clear. I do not wish to be mis-quoted.
> mpir 1.3 and ear
I apologise in advance for the length of this email.
Ok, I've checked out the entire svn.
grep -ir "lgplv3" * gives:
branches/mpir-parallel/mpn/x86_64/.svn/text-base/mulmid_basecase.asm.svn-base:dnl
LGPLv3+, license terms reproduced below. These modifications are hereby
branches/mpir-parallel/m
Dear All,
you may be aware of statements on the GMP website regarding MPIR. We
have been passed email correspondence in which Torbjorn Granlund again
alleges that we are distributing a:
"renamed GMP package with license downgraded from LGPL 3 to LPGL 2.1"
But we have no idea what he means. If an
Dear All,
The mpn_zero issue has now been fixed in Windows. This was the last
known problem with mpir-2.0.0-rc. I've uploaded mpir-2.0.0-rc6.tar.gz
to the MPIR website.
I believe this will be the last RC. If no problems are reported with
it, I will make it final tomorrow some time! Yay!
Bill.
-
Whoops. I forgot mpn_zero on Windows. So there will be an rc6 when we fix that.
Bill.
On 4 May 2010 01:28, Bill Hart wrote:
> I pulled the mpn_zero code in from GMP 5. That fixes the mpn_zero
> issue I reported. I've tested this on code that actually uses the
> mpn_zero.
>
> Thus I've put up mpi
12 matches
Mail list logo
