Just so that others can follow this discussion: could you post a
link or cut and paste some of your arguments against GPL v3?
I see how the difference between GPLv2 and GPLv3 may affect a
project like Java, but how does it matter for a project like SAGE? It
really seems to be a big deal to you
On Jun 21, 2009, at 8:21 AM, William Stein wrote:
> 2009/6/21 gsw :
>>
>> On 21 Jun., 15:54, William Stein wrote:
>>> 2009/6/21 Bjarke Hammersholt Roune :
>>>
>>>
>>>
I quote from
>>>
http://www.sagemath.org/doc/developer/inclusion.html
>>>
which is about the inclusion procedure
On Sun, Jun 21, 2009 at 9:14 PM, William Stein wrote:
>
> On Mon, Jun 22, 2009 at 1:42 AM, Gonzalo
> Tornaria wrote:
>> At some point in time, Sage included code which was GPLv2 only.
>> Authors were requested to extend their license to be GPLv2+, to allow
>> the choice of the GPLv3. It seems fair
On Mon, Jun 22, 2009 at 1:42 AM, Gonzalo
Tornaria wrote:
>
> On Sun, Jun 21, 2009 at 10:54 AM, William Stein wrote:
>> Does anybody who cares a lot have a strong opinion on whether Sage
>> should start allowing in new libraries that are licensed GPLv3+? If
>> so, why? Please, no flamebait, unle
On Sun, Jun 21, 2009 at 10:54 AM, William Stein wrote:
> Does anybody who cares a lot have a strong opinion on whether Sage
> should start allowing in new libraries that are licensed GPLv3+? If
> so, why? Please, no flamebait, unless you post only to the
> sage-flame mailing list http://groups.
On Sun, Jun 21, 2009 at 8:34 PM, Nick Alexander wrote:
>
>> Let's set up a regular time frame to publicly revisit the Sage
>> licensing, say in yearly intervals.
>
> I believe that other projects have had difficulty tracking down people
> who contributed code in the past when trying to deal with l
> Let's set up a regular time frame to publicly revisit the Sage
> licensing, say in yearly intervals.
I believe that other projects have had difficulty tracking down people
who contributed code in the past when trying to deal with licensing
issues. Why is our project different?
Nick
--~--
2009/6/21 gsw :
>
>
>
> On 21 Jun., 15:54, William Stein wrote:
>> 2009/6/21 Bjarke Hammersholt Roune :
>>
>>
>>
>> > I quote from
>>
>> > http://www.sagemath.org/doc/developer/inclusion.html
>>
>> > which is about the inclusion procedure for new packages. The first
>> > requirement is written a
On 21 Jun., 15:54, William Stein wrote:
> 2009/6/21 Bjarke Hammersholt Roune :
>
>
>
> > I quote from
>
> > http://www.sagemath.org/doc/developer/inclusion.html
>
> > which is about the inclusion procedure for new packages. The first
> > requirement is written as:
>
> > "The license must be a
