On Sun, Nov 16, 2008 at 01:58:29PM +0100, Ondrej Certik wrote:
>
> >> I am all for Fair use of SymPy, as an informal way of saying that it
> >> is (at least) polite to for example cite us and consider contributing
> >> the changes back, because in the end, it helps everyone. But the BSD
> >> license covers that --- it requires to give credit were credit is due.
> >
> > My "Fair use of SymPy" requres more -- in any case to share changes to
> > SymPy itself when the code is distributed.
>
> Ah, ok. I thought you mean the Fair use of SymPy that we currently
> have in our README. As I stated in my other email, I do not share your
> new Fair use.
Would it be ok if we correct fair use to only work when the code is
redistribured?
> >> >> But, one question:
> >> >>
> >> >> If sympy becomes LGPL, what license restrictions would my code have if
> >> >> I subclass sympy.Basic?
> >> >
> >> > If you subclass sympy.Basic from your outside-of-sympy code, and sympy
> >> > is LGPL'ed, in essence your code could be covered by *any* license you
> >> > like - be it BSD, LGPL, GPL, closed, etc -- any.
> >>
> >> But what if I want to subclass Basic and keep the class in the same
> >> file? Can half the file be LGPL and half BSD?
> >
> > No, as I understand it, it should be LGPL.
> >
> >> And btw, what is the point of being LGPL at all, if people who do not
> >> want to contribute changes back will just subclass Basic and keep
> >> their contributions in separate files, that they do not need to
> >> redistribute?
> >
> > As I've said many time already, for me the point in LGPL is that the
> > whole result can't be abused, i.e. always stays open, and in no
> > circumstances is distributed with private modifications applied and kept
> > in secret.
> >
> > If I'm alone in this - no problem. Let's not waste time and put all
> > accents on i.
>
> Ok, imagine I am the greedy company that you want to protect against.
> Imagine sympy is LGPL. What prevents me to keep my modifications and
> additions to sympy private using the technique of separate files (thus
> they don't have to be LGPL) and patching SymPy classes on the fly (at
> runtime)? I know that for you the point of LGPL is to prevent this. My
> point is that LGPL doesn't prevent this.
You can patch python files at runtime and it is perfectly ok with me,
since Python is a dynamic language where such interface is allowed.
Actually in this case you would use the _interface_ provided by our
library.
Also, since only library interface is used, it is ok with LGPL.
But how would you patch at runtime, compiled modules?
Also, patching at runtime is not always possible technically, i.e.
usually you can't do nontrivial patching.
--
Kirill
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
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
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
