#15857: change the licenses of schemes/toric/points.py,
rings/number_field/splitting_field.py, libs/readline.pyx to GPLv2+ (from
GPLv3+)
-------------------------------------+-------------------------------------
Reporter: was | Owner:
Type: defect | Status: needs_review
Priority: major | Milestone: sage-6.2
Component: misc | Resolution:
Keywords: | Merged in:
Authors: | Reviewers:
Report Upstream: N/A | Work issues:
Branch: | Commit:
u/saraedum/ticket/15857 | 9566989f4aedf02479a125943e9c0570db0281e9
Dependencies: | Stopgaps:
-------------------------------------+-------------------------------------
Comment (by was):
Replying to [comment:5 vbraun]:
> IMHO this is pointless, you cannot use Sage without GPLv3+ libraries. So
effectively you can only produce a working Sage under GPLv3+, regardless
of whether our own library code is GPLv2+ or GPLv3+. I admit that it did
confuse me originally, but why should we have to guard against merging any
file that is GPLv3+ only?
>
I decision was made years ago fairly unanimously by the Sage developers to
make the core library GPLv2+. You make a compelling argument, and I
think it's very reasonable to revisit the decision today. However, since
it's a decision with potentially serious implications, it would be best to
post a vote on sage-devel about this, and if the majority decision is to
switch to GPLv3+, then still have a time period before we actually make
the switch. What do you think?
--
Ticket URL: <http://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/15857#comment:6>
Sage <http://www.sagemath.org>
Sage: Creating a Viable Open Source Alternative to Magma, Maple, Mathematica,
and MATLAB
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"sage-trac" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to [email protected].
To post to this group, send email to [email protected].
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sage-trac.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
