On Wed, Nov 12, 2008 at 8:44 PM, Kirill Smelkov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Wed, Nov 12, 2008 at 10:44:41AM +0100, Ondrej Certik wrote: >> On Tue, Nov 11, 2008 at 1:36 PM, Friedrich Hagedorn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> wrote: >> > >> > Hello Kirill, >> > >> > I am also against this patch. You did a good job in the sympy >> > developement (fast patch reviewing, good patches, nice eMails, ...) >> > >> > It' pity that you say goodbye, but I think you need the time for >> > your Ph.D. (btw, it sounds interesting). Anyway, it was a good time >> > with you and I wish you many good ideas for you Ph.D. >> >> Exactly, my words. Kirill has done a phenomenal job with sympy and as >> to me, he is welcomed back anytime! >> >> He told me he will reply in the evening, as he is busy at the moment. > > Thanks Ondrej and Friedrich for your good words, here is my story: > > > In 2007/2008 when my cat was painfully dying, and my grandmother was > dying too because of cancer, It could seem strange, but I was feeling > strongly that sympy needs help and support because of > http://code.google.com/p/sympy/wiki/SymPyCore > > Today my cat and grandmother are passed away, but at that time they were > needing constant support and assistance and everything else, and this > could seem just more strange, because at that time I was breaking like > crazy in beetween assisting relatives and fighting for sympy. And I > think you all know it was a hard work to make the whole development > scheme go and to show that it is possible to do nontrivial development > and to achieve progress incrementally in a we-can-work-together way. > > Though there are still a lot of room for improvements, I think the task > to show that "evolution is possible" is complete.
Yes, I also think we have proved that we can improve with our current codebase and I also hope we'll prove it in the future by merging the new sympyx core (that we have written this summer) in. I myself almost dropped out of my school because of sympy the last year, so I couldn't invest more time in it than I did and I am very much grateful to you, that you helped out so much. > My journey with computers started at school, when I was 13 - I had not > access to any machine -- pen, paper and basic were my tools then. > > Then I had my own ZX Spectrum, which I enjoyed using --> > > (we had our own FIDO-like network, disk operating system, C compiler, > etc... In university years I even typed some of my TeX papers on ZX and > translated them on a class computer... overall Speccy was a wonderful > machine and a great learning playground for a lot of people). > > --> till the end of 2000 -- after graduating as bachelor and spending > some time in army, parents bought me my first pc. > > First time I had trouble to install RedHat Linux 6.2 (because of > non-standard ide controller), that's why I started studying Windows. > > And you know, I've came to a thought that "Windows is not the kind of > environment I would like to change my Speccy to." Too much magic, too > much internal inconsistency and dark corners, too complex sometimes with > obscure bug'o'features. That was not for me. > > Fortunately, digging through internet helped to install Linux, and a > wonderful world opened to me. I was charmed by UNIX ideas, and > simplicity (now I understand that this is [1], but at that time I was > not understanding it clearly). I learned learned learned ... - it was > like a house for programming - a good house - and it was open and saying > "welcome." > > I still believe I was very lucky having a very good book at hand > (written by physicist Kai Petzke btw - [2] is a russian translation of > [3]) to study things and digg them and understand them. Although one > of my friend told me the book was pointless to him, I think the main > value was in giving good starting points and good digging directions for > those who want to learn, and from this point of view, this book is > excellent. > > > Now I even don't remember when I first started studying and hacking free > software, maybe it was vgetty [4] into which I've hooked my software AON > (russian analogue of Caller ID) decoding, today I can't say. > > The main point is that somehow I first started to learn-by-doing as a > hobbyst. Then after we've met with nightbird people ([5], [6]) I had a > wonderful ability to work on several things - general linux, audio > capture/playback, the same for video, working with phone in data mode, > in voice as fax, we even hooked nice IBM ViaVoice speach synthesis > module into our system, and also russian "speaking mouse" _win32_ dll > through wine (sic!), encrypted voluems on raid arrays, custom installer > based on RedHat's anaconda, etc ... wow - this was all possible because > all the building blocks were open, and a young guy like me could just > take them, and study them, and adapt them to own needs, and to build > something new, basing on other's shoulders. > > Today I understand that this was a great pleasure for me and that thanks > to nightbird, I had so rare chance to self-educate at so many places, > with so fast pace, that though the project was abandoned later, I > strongly believe it opened doors to free software world to me changed my > life forever. > > Serge, Mikhail, I want to say thanks to you. As with everything, first > job is special, and I still miss you, and think of the time we spent > together with nostalgy. It does not that matter C++ or Python -- human > relations is what gives life to everything ... Absolutely, human relations is what makes life fun to live and I very much enjoy the social part of opensource too, and especially the python scientific community. I've met really really great people thanks to it. > What I'm trying to show you, that being free for software is important. > If a young guy or anyone else, could take it and study it, and modify it > and share it with others, it's like as in university: > > all the knowledge done by previous people is avaliable to students > > and if you think of it, you'll understand that as students, we usually > > study the knowledge collected and distilled by others for > _thouthands_ years, just in a say 4 years university course. > > We are all used to it, but I think this is a miracle, that human being > is made *that* flexible, so that starting from scratch, young he or she > can absorb the giant building of knowledge _easily_, just not > understanding what kind of thing is happening, and thinking of learnt as > of something usual. > > Besides humans being flexible, this is all possible only when the > science is open - all knowledge comes for free - it's available for all > people and for good. > > Likewise for software, when it comes for free as in free speech - open > and available for studing, modification, sharing - it's like with a good > science, humans absorb it and adapt it, and improve it for good. And a > young man, e.g. like me can study and grow and absorb all the things > done before, and go forward. Yes, I agree. That's why I like Debian and it's strict license policy so much --- because if I depend with my programs only on things from Debian main, I can be (pretty) sure that I will always have all the tools available to get the job done, no matter which company, or university or place I am at. Just the internet connection is needed, or just a big enough disk to handle the whole Debian archive. > > Compared to bad science, or locked down or proprietary software, it is a > very good thing! > > I'd like to explain better, but now I'm too sleepy, and I have 10 > minutes left, and tommorow I have to go to work and concentrate there > ... > > <so from now on it goes unstructured> > > > What is important is that the software should be free as in free speech > - one should always be able to: > > - run it > - study it > - modify it > - share it Yes. You should also be able to compile it (=run it) using only free software. E.g. that's what Debian main distribution preserves. > > There are mechanisms to legally make contracts with software users, > which protects this freedom, mainly strong copyleft (GPL) and weak > copyleft (LGPL). It is important to note, that not even GPL protects all kinds of "abuse". In my opinion, the far bigger "threat" are the internet based applications, like gmail, that are completely without sources and the companies can even run GPLed code behind it --- but you have no chance to study/run/modify or share the program. But as long as I am not forced to use such a service, I don't mind. And I use gmail, because it's good. But I don't have to, I can administer my own email server and use mutt. As long as I have this second option, I don't mind using non-free software (I also sometimes use google earth and skype and picasa and other things). I just don't want to depend on it. > From almost the beggining I was talking to Ondrej that I think it's > better to use LGPL for SymPy, that is anyone could be able to build > application or other libraries whichever license they choose (including > proprietary) on top of SymPy, but SymPy should always stays free as in > free speech. Mainly one should be disallowed to "make private > modifications to sympy and keep them secret." Here we disagree. For me personally, this right is very important, that not only I, but anyone can make any modification and do what he wants with it, including keeping it secret. > LGPL is a good compromise, and it does not force users of a library into > any license, so why can't it be used. Well, it depends on your personal point of view, but many people, including me view it in a way that it forces, because LGPL is not compatible with every license out there. Actually, I think there are even some problems with mixing LGPL 2 and LGPL 3 code. > > Why on earth, say I as a hobbyst, spending my spare time, would want the > result be used as a starting ground for closed software? BSD allows it > explicitly, and this is not ok with me. I respect your point of view and I think it's perfectly consistent. But I don't share it --- I am also a hobbyist to some extent, well as to sympy I still am, and I just want my code and my work to be used. Because I believe it is good for me and the whole community in the end. I do sympy because I very strongly believe in its potential and that we get to a point (and we are almost there) where I could use it regularly for my research. For example our recent work with Brian shows, that we could actually do atomic physics using only open source software in Python. That's very exciting. And if someone uses it in some commercial product? I believe it will help us, not hurt us. I believe it's about the community which is around sympy. Commercial product can have a community, but a different one --- I am pretty sure we all use sympy exactly because we have the source code and because it's opensource. > > Actually at my work, With one of my collegues, we've made an > observation, that usually motivated people, who are interested first in > developing interesting things, to achive great result, to care about the > project and it's ecosystem in general, and only then in money, usually > prefer LGPL to BSD, and on contrary side, people who tend to work for > money first, and care less about result, about fitting their development > with others, about achiving good results, pushing harder when needed, > prefer BSD. They usually say that "BSD is the license that companys > prefer, and for which they pay money" I think both ways are possible. I believe that Python itself and all the BSD like tools around it show that people can do BSD software and care about the project. > > Do you see the pattern? > > LGPL, being a fair contract, is good for everyone --> Here we disagree. I respect that for you "LGPL is good for everyone". But for me, "BSD is just as fair for everyone". > > (e.g. GTK+ is LGPL'ed, and there is a lot of free and proprietary > software which uses it without a problem) > > --> is choosen by people who care, whereas BSD is choosen by people who > want money first. I understand what you mean. But I don't think that people around sympy, or scipy or numpy don't care and want money first. So I disagree with that statement. > > Money is ok, but I even can say that usually who want money first, get > _less_ money than people who do care about the project in the first > place. Yes, I agree. I believe in american dream which says that you can get what you want, but you need to work hard and it may take a long time, but you'll get there eventually. > Also I can say that in our company we use a lot of LGPL'ed software, and > this is legally 100% ok, and that we even sponsor some LGPL'ed > development, so to me there is just no rational reason why LGPL is not > good for SymPy. There are pros and cons to all three BSD and LGPL and BSD. You stated the pros of LGPL. The cons is that LGPL creates a barrier of contributions, from a lot (but not all) people and also usage, because simply LGPL is more restrictive. Whenever you put more restrictions (I am not saying it is necessarily bad) you lose some users. So while LGPL is maybe good for sympy, BSD is imho better. > > I've failed to win Ondrej's mind, and I think I'll fail to convince most > of you, and it makes me very sad, that so much evident common sence is > not accepted, that I stopped thinking to be like at home with sympy > recently. I am sorry about that. But I think it is not a common sence. > > > Also, when someone is in a deep overwork, it so happens, that there > happens social issue, like e.g. quirelling with wife, after which I've > felt hurt at everyone and decided to quit. > > Yes, it was childish, but it shows, that (at least some) good developers > need good support, and also that spare time which can be spend for I believe that everyone needs good support. > either having a rest, going for a walk, for a talk with a human you > love, or either to develop sympy, is _precious_. I agree with this too. We all die once, so our time is limited and so we should spend it very effectively. > > For me I just can't afford to spend that _precious_ spare time without > legally protecting the result from abuse. I think I understand how you feel. But as I said above, I think LGPL maybe protects some abuse in some situations, but definitely not all abuse in all situations (see my example with gmail above) and also from the way you look at it, I don't even thinkl it is abuse -- depends on circumstances of course. > > I don't think this email will be of any use, but in case anyone is > interested, we had a lenghty private email conversation with Ondrej, to > which I'm ok to be opened in case this would be relevant. I don't mind either, but please send it to me in private first to check that I didn't write something I wouldn't like to be opened. > > I'm sad it turned out to be unstructured - usually I try to achive the > results which I like myself, but I would not have time for it in a > foreseable future. > > So, if there is someone who wants to better understand Kirr - you have a > pleanty of raw material now. > > Time to go, bye. Thanks for your email and I hope that we'll continue seeing you around. And if not, then thanks again for everything you did for sympy, it was and it is still a pleasure for me to work with you. Ondrej --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "sympy" group. To post to this group, send email to sympy@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sympy?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
