Jonathan wrote:
Hi,
> Since no one else has responded, I'll go ahead and say that I don't know
> anything about this. Maybe this email will be a reminder to someone who
> does know. (Or maybe any questions have already been taken care of off
> list?)
>
>
I did have a chat with rlm about the p
Jonathan wrote:
Hi,
> Since no one else has responded, I'll go ahead and say that I don't know
> anything about this. Maybe this email will be a reminder to someone who
> does know. (Or maybe any questions have already been taken care of off
> list?)
>
>
I did have a chat with rlm about the p
Since no one else has responded, I'll go ahead and say that I don't know
anything about this. Maybe this email will be a reminder to someone who
does know. (Or maybe any questions have already been taken care of off
list?)
On Fri, 2008-05-23 at 17:12 -0700, William Stein wrote:
> On Fri, May 23,
On Fri, May 23, 2008 at 4:43 PM, William Stein <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Fri, May 23, 2008 at 4:02 PM, Mike Hansen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>>> Actually, it is not released under GPL. It's currently licensed under
>>> Apache 2.0, which is GPL compatible. It had previously been under
>
On Fri, May 23, 2008 at 4:02 PM, Mike Hansen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> Actually, it is not released under GPL. It's currently licensed under
>> Apache 2.0, which is GPL compatible. It had previously been under
>> Boyer's personal license.
>
> The Apache 2.0 license is not compatible with G
> Actually, it is not released under GPL. It's currently licensed under
> Apache 2.0, which is GPL compatible. It had previously been under
> Boyer's personal license.
The Apache 2.0 license is not compatible with GPLv2. I believe during
Sage Days 7, he released it (at least to Sage) under the
> While we are at it: Somebody please change the license notes in the
> code from Apache to GPL since the code was relicensed, but that is not
> reflected in the actual source code.
>
Actually, it is not released under GPL. It's currently licensed under
Apache 2.0, which is GPL compatible. It
+1. Planarity is a mess of non Cython files that are included in the
main tree and should probably be compiled as a library.
On Fri, May 23, 2008 at 9:05 AM, mabshoff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On May 23, 12:55 pm, Robert Bradshaw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>
> Hi Robert,
>
>> Is there any
On May 23, 12:55 pm, Robert Bradshaw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
Hi Robert,
> Is there any reason why John Boyer's planarity code isn't an spkg?
It was submitted as a patch and included in the library tree. Is there
any specific reason it should be in its own spkg? One reason I could
imagine is
