On Mon, Feb 13, 2012 at 7:42 AM, Dr. David Kirkby <david.kir...@onetel.net> wrote: > > On 02/13/12 12:58 PM, William Stein wrote: >> >> On Mon, Feb 13, 2012 at 3:35 AM, Dr. David Kirkby >> <david.kir...@onetel.net> wrote: >>> >>> On 02/13/12 11:18 AM, Jason Grout wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> On 2/13/12 4:17 AM, Dr. David Kirkby wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Since some of packages will not have the "or later version" added into >>>>> the license, we can't distribute Sage as GPL 3 or even "GPL 2 or any >>>>> later version", since some of the components don't have the "or any >>>>> later version". >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Which packages are those? I thought we were being really careful to not >>>> include any packages that were GPLv2 only in the base, standard >>>> distribution of Sage? >>>> >>>> Or are you just imagining that there probably is such a package? >>>> >>>> Thanks, >>>> >>>> Jason >> >> >> >>> >>> First one I find is gfan. This is SPKG.txt: >> >> >> gfan is GPLv2+. >> >> I know the author of gfan personally; I don't remember for sure, but I >> think got him to GPL it in the first place. All he did was take his >> code and put the standard GPL "COPYING" file (which has the GPLv2 >> license in it) in the same directory, and include a LICENSE file that >> says: >> >> ------------- >> deep:src wstein$ more LICENSE >> The Gfan software is distributed under the "GNU GENERAL PUBLIC >> LICENSE" as described in the file "COPYING". >> Ask the author if you want a more reasonable license. >> ------------- > > > But currently SPKG.txt and COPYING state version 2 only. > > SPKG.txt for Mercurial states > > "== License == > * GNU General Public License version 2, or any later version > " > > but the COPYING file does not state "or any later version". Some programs do > (like znpoly), but Mercurial does not. Nor does gfan - despite you say you > know different. Nor does the COPYING file in 'moin', though SPKG.txt says it > is "GPLv2+". >
That does not matter. > >> Because the LICENSE file (and code) do not specifically state that the >> program is GPLv2, one may use any version of the GPL license (>= 2). > > > Note, that an author has to add the "or any later version" for it to become > applicable. Unless that is specifically stated, it you can't apply it. I think you are just making that up. From the GPL: "If the Program does not specify a version number of this License, you may choose any version ever published by the Free Software Foundation." > > iconv is GPL3 only. That's fine because GPL3 is GPLv2+ compatible. Remember your claim is: "if you want to be totally legal, then you should not use Sage." >> I'm not comfortable with this statement: "IMHO, if you want to be >> totally legal, then you should not use Sage." It seems like FUD that >> ignores a ton of hard work that we have all done campaigning to get >> licenses changed, sometimes choosing a much more difficult path >> (regarding which libraries we use) just because of GPL versions, etc. > > > If you believe it is 100% legal that is fine. But I don't, and nor does > Jeroen Demeyer > > http://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel/msg/078c738469cc5bbd There he says "I will say it more strongly: Sage *is* violating the GPL by distributing GPLv3-only packages (such as cvxopt) under a GPLv2+ licence. " However, that again is irrelevant, because we are *not* distributing cvxopt under a GPLv2+ license. I don't why anybody would think we are. Why do you and Jereon think I am distributing Sage under a GPLv2+ license?!?! The only claim made in our COPYING file is this: "Every component of Sage except jsmath is licensed under a GPL v2 (or later) compatible license." The GPLv3-only license is compatible with GPLv2+, in the sense that one can combine a GPLv2+ codebase with a GPLv3 codebase to create a new program that is licensed under GPLv3. Obviously, as a combined work, one must apply the GPLv3 license to the GPLv2+ codebase. >> To the best of my knowledge there is not ** ONE SINGLE PACKAGE ** >> included with Sage that is licensed GPLv2 only. > > > Well, certainly there seems to be a lot of COPYING files that state they are > GPL version 2, with no mention of the "any later version" the license says > one should put if one wants to apply the license to later releases. > The COPYING file is from FSF. It looks like this. Maybe you should read it: ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- $ cat COPYING GNU GENERAL PUBLIC LICENSE Version 2, June 1991 ... ... If the Program does not specify a version number of this License, you may choose any version ever published by the Free Software Foundation. ... <signature of Ty Coon>, 1 April 1989 Ty Coon, President of Vice ... If this is what you want to do, use the GNU Library General Public License instead of this License. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- >> If this is not >> actually the case, I really want to know about it. I believe that >> Sage is 100% legally distributed and does not violate any copyright >> statements at all. > > > You are welcome to your opinion. I just don't happen to agree with it. I would be very appreciate if you could provide even a shred of evidence that supports your opinion that: "IMHO, if you want to be totally legal, then you should not use Sage." I know of absolutely no copyright issues with the current Sage distribution. If I were aware of any violations, I would address them ASAP. -- William -- William Stein Professor of Mathematics University of Washington http://wstein.org -- To post to this group, send an email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to sage-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel URL: http://www.sagemath.org
