On 7/8/07, William Stein <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On 7/7/07, David Joyner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > I'm happy with the > > Attribution-ShareAlike Creative Commons license: > > http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.0/ > > I think there is also a GPL Documentation license which is > > similar. > > > > +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > > > > On 7/7/07, Martin Albrecht <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > do we have a license on the SAGE Wiki content? I am not so firm when it > > > comes > > > to documentation licenses, but basically I would like it to be as open as > > > possible, e.g. it should be possible to put Wiki content in a book (with > > > proper credits). How about the documentation in general? > > > Regarding the pdf documents, David Joyner is the principal author of the > constructions documents, and he and I are the main authors of the tutorial. > I'm the main author of the install guide and programming guide (though > Ifti B. and others have done a lot of work improving the programming guide). > I think it will be good if we do the following: > > (1) I propose that David and I explicitly license all the current "paper" > documentation under the the Creative Commons license that David suggested > above (though version 3.0, probably, since it's newer: > http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/ -- this site doesn't > work for me right now). > > (2) We do so by including a statement to this effect in some sort of page > at the beginning of the tex file for each document, and this change be > included in the (long overdue -- sorry!) SAGE-2.7 release. > > (3) We state also that by making an explicit contribution to the SAGE wiki > or > the SAGE documentation, that ones contribution is licensed under > the Create Commons 3.0 license. This should be prominently displayed > on the SAGE wiki home page. > > (4) Nonetheless, regarding (3), we still worry about getting explicit > license > statements, especially for large contributions. > > (5) We apply the same approach to JSAGE: > > http://www.sagemath.org/jsage/ > > Yes, JSAGE is currently "dead", but I'm certain it will turn out to > be very important in the long run, once I figure out how to really > make it useful. In fact, I think perhaps the best thing would be > something like this page: > http://www.math.uiuc.edu/Macaulay2/Publications/ > but for every publication there would be an additional 5 page (or so) > paper that we have with additional code, examples, etc. I.e., JSAGE > would be like an extremely annotated bibliography of the use of SAGE > in mathematical research. > > By the way, the middle of this page: > http://www.math.uiuc.edu/Macaulay2/ > has a fascinating quote by 2006 Fields Medalist Andrei Okounkov > calling for "funding agencies" to fund non-commercial math software. > (David Joyner -- should we put that quote in our NSF white paper?)
Great idea. Version 5 is up (with a few other changes) http://sage.math.washington.edu/home/wdj/research/oscas-nsf-white-paper5.pdf > > > > Thoughts? > > > Martin > > Thanks for asking before it's too late. Now is a great time to clarify the > situation. > > -- William > > > > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel URLs: http://sage.scipy.org/sage/ and http://modular.math.washington.edu/sage/ -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
