Hi Paul,
I am rapidly coming to the realisation that you are right.
I am very, very surprised by this. I had up until now been under the
impression that there is far more development going on under the GPL
or LGPL licenses. In fact I had been told that licensing something
with the BSD license wou
On Apr 12, 1:59 pm, Cactus wrote:
> In my view GMP and MPIR are a total mess in software engineering terms
> and I would hence like nothing beeter than to participate in the
> development of a new, well structured multiple precision library under
> aa open source license that provided for commerc
As quite a lot of people have mentioned the possibility of a BSD
licensed MPIR, I started a separate thread for this.
Bill.
On 12 April 2010 14:57, Pierre Joye wrote:
> hi Bill,
>
> Thanks for the extensive reply, very much appreciated.
>
> On Mon, Apr 12, 2010 at 1:55 PM, Bill Hart
> wrote:
hi Bill,
Thanks for the extensive reply, very much appreciated.
On Mon, Apr 12, 2010 at 1:55 PM, Bill Hart wrote:
> On 12 April 2010 11:18, Pierre Joye wrote:
> The main appeal is that we can use code from GMP without replicating
> their efforts and accept code from developers who want to li
On Apr 12, 1:18 pm, Bill Hart wrote:
> On 12 April 2010 13:06, Cactus wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Apr 12, 11:18 am, Pierre Joye wrote:
> >> hi,
>
> >> On Fri, Apr 9, 2010 at 2:55 PM, Bill Hart
> >> wrote:
> >> > On 9 April 2010 13:23, Marc wrote:
> >> >> Hello,
>
> >> >> I am not sure I underst
On 12 April 2010 13:06, Cactus wrote:
>
>
> On Apr 12, 11:18 am, Pierre Joye wrote:
>> hi,
>>
>> On Fri, Apr 9, 2010 at 2:55 PM, Bill Hart
>> wrote:
>> > On 9 April 2010 13:23, Marc wrote:
>> >> Hello,
>>
>> >> I am not sure I understand what is going on with MPIR. When the fork
>> >> happened
To follow up from the previous post, I want to give a list of all the
things that people have offered to contribute to the MPIR project from
"outside" the project. I don't want to give the impression that
absolutely no one is contributing anything new to MPIR:
* Jason Martin recently contributed s
On Apr 12, 11:18 am, Pierre Joye wrote:
> hi,
>
> On Fri, Apr 9, 2010 at 2:55 PM, Bill Hart wrote:
> > On 9 April 2010 13:23, Marc wrote:
> >> Hello,
>
> >> I am not sure I understand what is going on with MPIR. When the fork
> >> happened, 2 of the main stated goals where:
> >> 1) LGPL2 (requ
Hi Pierre,
Thanks very much for your questions and comments. I attempt to answer
them below based on my (limited) understanding at this point in time.
Others might be able to give more clear or helpful answers.
On 12 April 2010 11:18, Pierre Joye wrote:
> hi,
>
> On Fri, Apr 9, 2010 at 2:55 PM,
hi,
On Fri, Apr 9, 2010 at 2:55 PM, Bill Hart wrote:
> On 9 April 2010 13:23, Marc wrote:
>> Hello,
>>
>> I am not sure I understand what is going on with MPIR. When the fork
>> happened, 2 of the main stated goals where:
>> 1) LGPL2 (required for sage+microsoft)
>> --> MPIR is now LGPL3+ only
>
Whoops, I nearly forgot.
The svn had to be moved as we had problems at the original location.
Here is the new address:
http://boxen.math.washington.edu/svn/mpir/mpir/
Thanks again to William Stein for hosting this for us!
Bill.
On 9 April 2010 13:55, Bill Hart wrote:
> On 9 April 2010 13:23
On 9 April 2010 13:23, Marc wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I am not sure I understand what is going on with MPIR. When the fork
> happened, 2 of the main stated goals where:
> 1) LGPL2 (required for sage+microsoft)
> --> MPIR is now LGPL3+ only
Correct. Will this create any issues for you?
> 2) a more open
Hello,
I am not sure I understand what is going on with MPIR. When the fork
happened, 2 of the main stated goals where:
1) LGPL2 (required for sage+microsoft)
--> MPIR is now LGPL3+ only
2) a more open development process
--> the public svn repository has been unavailable for months, the
public ma
13 matches
Mail list logo
