From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Not always so. Verbatim snippet from the horse's mouth: > > > "When we say that GPLv2 and GPLv3 are incompatible, it means there is no > legal way to combine code under GPLv2 with code under GPLv3 in a single > program. This is because both GPLv2 and GPLv3 are copyleft licenses: each > of them says, "If you include code under this license in a larger program, > the larger program must be under this license too." There is no way to > make them compatible. We could add a GPLv2-compatibility clause to GPLv3, > but it wouldn't do the job, because GPLv2 would need a similar clause. > > Fortunately, license incompatibility only matters when you want to link, > merge or combine code from two different programs into a single program. > There is no problem in having GPLv3-covered and GPLv2-covered programs > side by side in an operating system. For instance, the TeX license and the > Apache license are incompatible with GPLv2, but that doesn't stop us from > running TeX and Apache in the same system with Linux, Bash and GCC. This > is because they are all separate programs. Likewise, if Bash and GCC move > to GPLv3, while Linux remains under GPLv2, there is no conflict." > > http://www.gnu.org/licenses/rms-why-gplv3.html
Well, I wouldn't call SAGE a single program. Besides, that's exactly what commercial CAS's do. In particular, Maple includes gmp and a series of other programs under separate licenses. Alec --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ To post to this group, send email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com 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/ -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
