On Tue, Jun 30, 2015 at 11:14 PM, Jori Mäntysalo wrote:
>
> Maybe. But it would be quite nasty to interpret it that way, if we know that
> propably it is not what was meant.
You say nasty, I say that's the legal ramification of distributing his
code under GPLv3+. We agree on this point, which is
On Tue, 30 Jun 2015, Tom Boothby wrote:
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.
Maybe. But it w
On Tue, Jun 30, 2015 at 5:25 PM, Tom Boothby wrote:
> 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 pr
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 c
On Tue, Jun 30, 2015 at 11:28 AM, Tom Boothby wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 30, 2015 at 11:12 AM, Jori Mäntysalo
> 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 lice
On Tue, 30 Jun 2015, William Stein wrote:
Somewhere must be a well-written essay "Thou shall not restrict your
free programs to be almost-free".
Here's one of those essays - the author definitely put thought into it:
http://www.dwheeler.com/essays/gpl-compatible.html
Good text. But it do
On Tue, Jun 30, 2015 at 11:12 AM, Jori Mäntysalo 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 p
On Tue, Jun 30, 2015 at 11:09 AM, kcrisman wrote:
>> Somewhere must be a well-written essay "Thou shall not restrict your
>> free programs to be almost-free".
Here's one of those essays - the author definitely put thought into it:
http://www.dwheeler.com/essays/gpl-compatible.html
>>
>
> W
On Tue, 30 Jun 2015, Tom Boothby wrote:
I spoke with Brendan McKay personally less than a month ago. He is
fully aware about the restrictions, and utterly unmoved by the
difficulty his license creates.
Duh. Then what he means when saying that we can ignore it for
incorporation into Sage?
A
>
> Somewhere must be a well-written essay "Thou shall not restrict your
> free programs to be almost-free".
>
>
Well, that is the whole GPL/BSD/public domain thing...
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"sage-devel" group.
To unsubscribe from this g
>
> Just to spell out the obvious, software engineers are actually
> sought-after by industry (unlike mathematicians, let's face it). If you
> want to hire a top-notch engineer who's in it for the money then you'll
> have to pay a good deal more than the average math prof salary.
>
>
>>
Thanks
I spoke with Brendan McKay personally less than a month ago. He is
fully aware about the restrictions, and utterly unmoved by the
difficulty his license creates.
On Mon, Jun 29, 2015 at 4:30 AM, Jori Mäntysalo wrote:
> More about licenses, see http://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/14110 . This is a
>
Yo !
> Btw, I have another remark: in the online reference manual on sagemath page,
> clicking on "(Source code)" next to a plot results in a 404 error
That's fixed:
http://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/17618
Though the online manual will still display them until the next
'stable' release (wh
Hello everybody,
I just created ticket #18826 [1], which contains a new script to check that our
'spkg-src' scripts (in some new-style package) indeed produce the file that is
to be found in upstream.
While it is not totally clean (the spkg-src scripts clearly are not), I created
this ticket to s
I'd be happy with any progress on symbolics, and Ralf did already a great
job there!
Just to spell out the obvious, software engineers are actually sought-after
by industry (unlike mathematicians, let's face it). If you want to hire a
top-notch engineer who's in it for the money then you'll ha
Thanks for your prompt answer. As I said, this is not a big deal, since
everything can be reformulated without the Sage preparser.
Btw, I have another remark: in the online reference manual on sagemath
page, clicking on "(Source code)" next to a plot results in a 404 error,
see e.g. the plot of
To answer more precisely: the engineers who will be recruited will be
engineers and not mathematician, so they will work mostly on
non-mathematical improvement. For the mathematical content, we will still
rely on the good will of researchers (even though, some of our time is also
given to OpenDream
> I am using it in #18528 and have noticed that the Sage preparser is not
> invoked in the series of instructions between ".. PLOT::" and
> "sphinx_plot(...)": we cannot use the "<>" trick and we have to write "x**2"
> instead of "x^2". Is there a way to turn the Sage preparser on? Anyway, this
> i
Hi Nathann,
Many thanks for this very useful enhancement!
I am using it in #18528 and have noticed that the Sage preparser is not
invoked in the series of instructions between ".. PLOT::" and
"sphinx_plot(...)": we cannot use the "<>" trick and we have to write
"x**2" instead of "x^2". Is there
Hi,
I'd just add a function groebner_basis(F) to sage.libs.giac (or wherever the
Giac Cython interface lives) which takes a Sage sequence, computes a Gröbner
basis and returns a Sage sequence.
Integrating that into multi_polynomial_ideal.py is then very easy.
I've created
http://trac.sage
20 matches
Mail list logo
