GMP 4.2.2 is LGPLv3, not GPLv3, so I think it would still work (though as I did mention, this is still an issue if we use anything with the (non-library) GPL). My proposal was that SAGE would be our GPL derivative but without this annoyance.
My understanding is that GPLv2 can link to libraries that are less restrictive (for instance BSD/MIT/LGPLv2) as long as they are GPL- compatible, but LGPLv3 is more restrictive which is why that doesn't work. BTW, I totally agree with your rant. - Robert On Sep 25, 2007, at 12:18 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > This is not an option. From GPL2: > > 2. ... > b) You must cause any work that you distribute or publish, that in > whole or in part contains or is derived from the Program or any > part thereof, to be licensed as a whole at no charge to all third > parties under the terms of this License. > >> From GPL3: > > These requirements apply to the modified work as a whole. If > identifiable > sections of that work, added by you, are not derived from the > Program, and can > be reasonably considered independent and separate works in > themselves, then > this License, and its terms, do not apply to those sections when > you distribute > them as separate works for use not in combination with the > Program. But when > you distribute the same sections for use in combination with > covered works, no > matter in what form such combination occurs, the whole of the > combination must > be licensed under this License, whose permissions for other > licensees extend to > the entire whole, and thus to every part of the whole. Your > sections may carry > other terms as part of this combination in limited ways, described > in section > 7. > > > Hence, if Sage cannot function without GPL3 software, it *must* be > licensed > under GPL3, and no other license. Therefore, "GPL2 or later" truly > means > "GPL3" the instant that we include gmp4.2.2, no matter what we > might tell > ourselves. Similarly, if there is a library which is GPL2 only, we > cannot > include it once we've included gmp4.2.2. This is utterly > ridiculous, but > apparently a fact of life. > > <rant>With all of RMS's talk about "subjugation", and Microsoft > "forcing" > people into using their software, he seems pretty happy to "force" > people into > using the new license, and cause others to turn around and pressure > their > friends to do the same -- does this remind anybody else of the > early days of > communism in China? Oh, wait. No. I almost forgot: people aren't > getting > *killed* for doing or not doing these things -- what's > "subjugation" mean > again?</rant> > > Anyway. Sorry for that. I found this link useful: > > http://www.groklaw.net/articlebasic.php?story=20060118155841115 > > and I got the above quotes from row #5. > > > On Tue, 25 Sep 2007, Robert Bradshaw wrote: > >> >> At this point it looks like the only reasonable option is to >> (begrudgingly) move to "GPLv2 or above" but there is another option >> that I haven't seen come up in discussion yet, and that is releasing >> SAGE under an amended GPLv2 that explicitly allows linking against >> LGPLv3+ libraries (or some other compatibility clause). This would >> free us from being at the mercy of whatever the FSF decides is a good >> idea 10 years from now, or even what they decided this last year. >> >> In doing this, however, we would loose what to me is the biggest >> advantage of the GPL over all the other copyleft Open Source licenses >> out there, namely that one merely has to say "this code is GPL" and >> everyone has an idea (of varying accuracy) what you're talking about. >> Also, it would only cover LGPL code, not anything GPL. >> >> I am not convinced that this is the best idea, I just wanted to throw >> it out there. >> >> - Robert >> >> >> On Sep 23, 2007, at 11:34 AM, William Stein wrote: >> >>> >>> On 9/23/07, Mike Hansen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>>> It seems odd that closed source software could use GMP under the >>>> LGPLv3, but that a GPLv2 project could not. How tightly >>>> integrated is >>>> the GMP stuff? Aren't we pretty much just using it as a library? >>> >>> We are just using it as a library. The problem isn't LGPLv3, >>> but GPLv2 itself! But please see >>> http://gplv3.fsf.org/dd3-faq >>> where it is made crystal clear that in fact a GPLv2 project can't >>> even use an LGPLv3 library in library-only mode. >>> >>> There is a discussion here: >>> http://lwn.net/Articles/241065/ >>> >>> In short, Magma and Maple can use GMP under LGPLv3, but >>> Sage can't, because Sage is GPLv2, and the GPLv2 specifically >>> disallows linking against libraries that are more restrictive >>> (except things like the C library). >>> >>> -- 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/ -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
