On Wed, Nov 19, 2008 at 01:55:25AM +0100, Ondrej Certik wrote: > > On Tue, Nov 18, 2008 at 11:32 PM, Jim Jewett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > [Just a bit of history; I am explicitly abstaining on which license is > > "best".] > > > > On Tue, Nov 18, 2008 at 4:19 PM, Kirill Smelkov > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> On Sun, Nov 16, 2008 at 11:42:47PM +0100, Ondrej Certik wrote: > > > >>> anyone can make any modification and do what he > >>> wants with it, including keeping it secret. > > > >> What's your rationale on this? Why you need the > >> right to keep modifications of sympy secret? > >> Is there any reason this is good for sympy? > > > > (1) Some people won't use the library unless they have that right. > > They may never exercise that right. They probably won't exercise it > > except on small portions. So getting them to use it (and contribute > > back on the rest) is useful. > > > > (2) Even if the right makes no sense, it is still important to some > > people, for reasons *I* can't quite explain. > > > > The GPL lets you make modifications and keep them secret, so long as > > you don't distribute the result. You can even put the result behind a > > web service, and let others use it -- so long as you don't let them > > install it themselves, the GPL doesn't open the code. That seems like > > a pretty stupid loophole to most people, but the FSF has been very > > clear that it is intentional. The Aladdin Ghostscript License did say > > that exposing the modifications as a service would mean they had to be > > public. They needed special permission from the FSF to add that > > restriction to their GNU-like license, because it *is* a restriction. > > The FSF specifically approved it only for that one case, not in > > general, and only as an experiment -- which they chose not to extend. > > Thanks Jim for taking part in the discussion. Yes, those are reasons, > why people like BSD. The other reasons were stated by Brian and Gael > --- those are more pragmatic reasons.
Where were you, all so vocal BSD lovers, when sympy needed real help with work, patches and documentation? Sure, you'll bash me right now, so no, I don't need your answers. Please think of this like of last rhythorical question. > Another point (also made by Jim) is that while we are sticking to BSD, > nothing is stopping you to create an LGPL fork, or even GPL fork. Or > non-free fork. We are not restricting your rights in any way. If you > believe your way is the way to go, go ahead. But I said all my points > already, so I am not going to repeat myself. > > On Tue, Nov 18, 2008 at 10:19 PM, Kirill Smelkov > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > On Sun, Nov 16, 2008 at 11:42:47PM +0100, Ondrej Certik wrote: > >> Hi, > >> > >> thanks everyone for the discussion about the licences. After valuing all > >> the arguments for and against LGPL, I am making a decisions, that: > >> > >> SymPy is going to stay *BSD* > >> > >> And as long as I am going to do all the releases and all the management > >> things, it is going to stay that way. > >> > >> Thanks again and now let's get back to work, > >> Ondrej > > > > Sure, Commander, we all obey! > > > > but I think it would be more expressive as follows: > > > > blah blah blah ... *BSD*, and Kirr, get out of my way. > > > > :) > > No, this is not true. I very much hope you will stick around and if > LGPL or GPL is very important for you, that you will help our > community in some way, that is acceptable for you. No, I won't contribute my resources to sympy anymore. Enough is enough. > > Seriously though, I personally think that there are open questions: > > > > 1. I've tried to answer every single question you've asked me, but > > you've skipped some of mine, e.g.: > > > > """ > > > 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. > > > > What's your rationale on this? Why you need the right to keep > > modifications of sympy secret? Is there any reason this is good for > > sympy? > > """ > > > > http://groups.google.com/group/sympy/msg/c405c091076f6cfa > > > > please answer it. > > As I and Jim answered above ---- it is an important right that many > people around scientific Python share. It is good for sympy because > sympy belongs among numpy, scipy and matplotlib packages and those are > people that are using it a lot. That said, I think we have very good > relationships with the Sage project, which is GPL and I myself spend > days just making sympy works nicely in Sage and I am going to continue > in this effort. > > > > > > > 2. I think when making such a key decision (and this is a key decision), > > and if you are really interested in what people think, it is > > absolutely neccessary to wait for, or explicitely ask at least key > > developers. > > > > I'm talking about Mateusz, Fabian, Fredrik and others. > > > > Sure, you could ask them in private, but I thought SymPy is about > > > > """team work, open discussion about everything, cooperation""" > > (your words from http://code.google.com/p/sympy/wiki/SymPyCore) > > > > Is it? > > Yes. All of them are around and if they feel strongly about it, they > can express their opinions anytime. But first I believe BSD is the > right license for SymPy. And second, as I said above, by staying BSD > we are not restricting rights of anyone. Anyone who disagrees with me > can take our git repository and do whatever he wants with it. Thanks > to the distributed nature of git, it's easy for anyone to maintain his > own fork and restrict the distribution of it in any way he likes. > > As to "open discussion", yes, I am open to all arguments on this > issue, and anyone feel free to discuss and correct anything already > said on this list and in fact I ask everyone involved to say directly > what he/she things and I very much appreciate all the responses (both > agreeing and disagreeing with my position) so far, and that's how it > should be. > > As to "team work and cooperation", yes I believe in it and I consider > us as a team. We all have the same aim --- having a good symbolic > manipulation library for Python. Yes, we can differ in things how to > achieve that and which license to use, but I believe we can always > find effective ways to cooperate and take advantage of each other, so > that we can get to our goal faster, but still respecting what each of > us want. Thanks for answering. I see your point and I don't want to discuss this anymore. Your points are yours, mine points are mine. End of story. > > Kirill > > > > P.S. Varya says she thinks that in the heart of you, you understand that > > I'm right. > > Well, if you want to know what my heart says, it says that what you > want is perfectly consistent, but it is incompatible with what I > believe and what a lot (but not all!) of sympy developers and users > believe. It also says, that all of these positions (e.g. more BSD > like, or LGPL like, or GPL like) are all perfectly valid and make > sense --- we all know people who really like BSD, or LGPL or GPL, or > don't care, and I believe one cannot honestly say that some of them > are just wrong. My heart also says that given all of that, SymPy needs > a clear decision and I am making such a decision and taking full > responsibility for it. Sure. Keep it your way. Kirill. P.S. I believe much more to Varya. --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
