On 9/23/07, Joel B. Mohler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sunday 23 September 2007 15:46, William Stein wrote:
> > However, in the COPYING file for Sage itself, I wrote: "All original
> > SAGE code is distributed under the terms of the GNU General Public
> > License *Version 2*."
> >
> > Just out of curiosity, would anybody be angry if I were to remove the
> > words "*Version 2*" from the above sentence in the COPYING file?
>
> Well, I wouldn't say I'd be "angry", but I dislike the GPLv3. My principle
> reason for disliking it is section 3. I didn't read up on acticle 11 of
> WIPO, but my understanding is that they are attempting to forbid writing of
> DRM schemes with GPL'ed code. I don't like where that goes. When I release
> code under the GPL I'm not concerned about what the users do with it -- I'm
> only concerned that they release their code that builds on it. I believe
> this is two fundamentally different issues and I think that the FSF is
> muddying the waters to mix them.
> Now, I realize that people who feel strongly opposed to DRM may find my
> distinction silly. Actually, I feel rather strongly opposed to DRM myself
> but I don't want to start enumerating all the things that I feel strongly
> about that I don't want my code to be used for.
I agree -- this is basically off topic. Also, GPLv3 went through many
revisions, which generated "myths" as David Joyner points out below.
Personally, I don't like the GPLv3 for one reason only: it is not
GPLv2 compatible, and I know that I do like GPLv2.
> Anyhow, maybe I'm totally misunderstanding section 3. Also I realize that
> GPLv3 is probably the only realistic way forward since the FSF is the 800 lb
> gorilla as far as open licenses are concerned. I guess I would sum up my
> feeling as being that I'm more strongly opposed to license proliferation than
> I am against the DRM clause in GPLv3.
>
> I very much do not like the blanket "or later version" scheme for dealing with
> the GPL. This, to me, gives the FSF a blank check for whatever in GPLv4, and
> after seeing GPLv3, I trust them even less than I used to.
True. And "or later" definitely allows them to not only add new
terms (GPLv3 is GPLv2 + more restrictions), but it allows them
to remove terms.
> On Sunday 23 September 2007 15:46, William Stein wrote:
> > Evidently nobody (but me) has ever actually submitted any code to Sage
> > where they explicitly put "Version 2" in their copyright statement.
> > I'm asking this mainly to see what our options are.
>
> I didn't make any requests, but that was because I already knew it was GPLv2
> (which was what I wanted).
Yes, and it *is* GPLv2. Don't worry.
> I'm not quite comfortable with your license analysis for PARI and Singular.
> If they say GPLv2 somewhere prominent in their distribution I would take that
> to apply to all the source and not view the individual source files
> differently because they don't specify the version number (i.e. I believe
> they intended to have each individual source file released under GPLv2, but
> didn't think it was worth repeating).
Regarding PARI, I think Henri and Karim did the following:
(1) put "this code is GPL'd" in each file, and
(2) put the GPL v2 license file verbatim -- the only one you could
possibly put -- in the top level of the source file.
(3) did *not* -- as far as I can tell -- mention GPL v2
explicitly anywhere else.
I.e., they did the minimum reasonable work to GPL a program,
so they could get back to interesting mathematics. Also,
the section about their choice of GPL here
http://www.math.u-bordeaux.fr/~belabas/pari/doc/faq.html#GPL
says nothing about GPL v2.
It's very clear in the generic GPL license file included in PARI
that if the program itself does not specify a version number, then
any version of the license may be used. As further evidence the
PARI startup banner says:
"PARI/GP is free software, covered by the GNU General Public License,
and comes WITHOUT ANY WARRANTY WHATSOEVER."
So from a legal point of view, I think it is clear that PARI is GPL
version 2 or later. This is surprising to me, since it's not at all
what I expected. But it's true. If you can see any problem with this
argument, let me know.
That said, since I know the PARI authors, we could just ask them for
clarification.
-- William
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
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/
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
