Attached is a somewhat improved version.
(I don't want to flood the mailing list with attachments, so I won't
send this file as an attachment to the list again after this.)
The main improvement is that the code is better commented and more
readable now. The secondary improvement is an increase i
great work, Jonathan!
I've tested, and I've found the following problems:
1) part 1 hangs
2) compiling with -Wall gives this warning
part.cc:865: warning: unused variable 'temp2'
3) part without arguments returns 42
Pablo
On 7/29/07, Jonathan Bober <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Attached i
On 7/29/07, Pablo De Napoli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> great work, Jonathan!
>
> I've tested, and I've found the following problems:
>
> 1) part 1 hangs
Yep. In the SAGE rapper for part, I just do that
as a special case (i.e., dont' call part for n <= 1)
> 2) compiling with -Wall gives this
William (and others):
There is a licence issue about Sage raised by GPL-v3, that may be you
need to consider
(I'm not a lawyer so that what I'm saying could be wrong).
Currently according to the COPYING file, Sage is released under GPL version 2.
The problem is that some packages included in Sa
On 7/29/07, Pablo De Napoli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> William (and others):
>
> There is a licence issue about Sage raised by GPL-v3, that may be you
> need to consider
> (I'm not a lawyer so that what I'm saying could be wrong).
As far as I can tell, what you are saying is consistent with
On Jul 28, 10:16 pm, "William Stein" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Unfortunately linbox won't build yet with GCC >= 4.2.0. The linbox
> developers
> are painfully aware of this, and it's evidently a nontrivial problem for them
> to
> fix. SAGE-2.7.2 (which I just uploaded moments ago) will buil
Yes, it sounds to be a reasonable plan to me.
All of us I think do prefer do coding and mathematics... =)
(But I thought that it was something important to be aware of)
Pablo
On 7/29/07, William Stein <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On 7/29/07, Pablo De Napoli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Wil
On 7/29/07, znmeb <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Jul 28, 10:16 pm, "William Stein" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Unfortunately linbox won't build yet with GCC >= 4.2.0. The linbox
> > developers
> > are painfully aware of this, and it's evidently a nontrivial problem for
> > them to
> > fix.
While I think the goals of the FSF in general and the various
and sundry versions of the GPL in particular are in many senses noble,
I *bitterly* resent the complexity of the GPL, especially version 3.
The implication of that complexity is that a programmer who wishes to
develop free software must
On 7/29/07, Pablo De Napoli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> William (and others):
>
> There is a licence issue about Sage raised by GPL-v3, that may be you
> need to consider
> (I'm not a lawyer so that what I'm saying could be wrong).
This comes up in sage-devel about once every other month.
Thanks
On 7/29/07, William Stein <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On 7/29/07, Pablo De Napoli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > William (and others):
> >
> > There is a licence issue about Sage raised by GPL-v3, that may be you
> > need to consider
> > (I'm not a lawyer so that what I'm saying could be wrong)
On 7/29/07, David Joyner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Does that sound reasonable to sage-devel?
>
> Sounds good to me..
>
> BTW, anything I contributed can be released under "GPL v2 or later".
> Also, I checked that GAP is distributed that way
> http://www.gap-system.org/Download/copyright.html
On Jul 29, 2007, at 12:03 , William Stein wrote:
> On 7/29/07, Pablo De Napoli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[snip]
> Yes, I cannot release SAGE under GPL V3 until:
>
>1. Every single component of SAGE, including PARI,
> is licensed under a GPL V3 compatible license, and
>
>2. I get pe
On Jul 29, 12:19 pm, "William Stein" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Technically speaking, all of my systems run "testing" level Gentoo, so
> > this sort of thing is to be expected. I can easily drop back to a
> > stable GCC any time I want to, or for that matter, just force a 4.1.2
> > compile for
mwrank's GPL statement says version 2 or later!
John
On 7/29/07, William Stein <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > BTW, anything I contributed can be released under "GPL v2 or later".
> > Also, I checked that GAP is distributed that way
> > http://www.gap-system.org/Download/copyright.html
>
> Thank
> While I think the goals of the FSF in general and the various
> and sundry versions of the GPL in particular are in many senses noble,
To the contrary, the general theme in GPLv3 seems to be "[EMAIL
PROTECTED] you, Microsoft and Tivo" regardless of any political backlash.
About as noble as a
On Jul 29, 2007, at 3:42 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>> While I think the goals of the FSF in general and the various
>> and sundry versions of the GPL in particular are in many senses
>> noble,
>
> To the contrary, the general theme in GPLv3 seems to be "!
> @#$ you, Microsoft and Tivo" reg
> \begin{RankSpeculationRequest}
> Does anyone have a good feel for the impact of adding BSD-, MIT-, or
> CCL-licensed content to a base that is licensed under GPL2 (as I
> think SAGE is now); or under GPL3?
>
> My recollection is that it isn't pretty.
> \end{RankSpeculationRequest}
I forgot to
There is also a possibility to release a distribution under few different
licenses - for example, a part as GPL3, a part as GPL 2, and a part as MIT
or whatever. That, by the way, would allow including code from Microsoft
Research.
Alec
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
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
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 cop
On 7/29/07, Alec Mihailovs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> 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 GPLv
On Jul 29, 2007, at 18:24 , Alec Mihailovs wrote:
>
> 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 i
On 7/29/07, Justin C. Walker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
> On Jul 29, 2007, at 18:24 , Alec Mihailovs wrote:
>
> >
> > From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >
> >>
> >> Not always so. Verbatim snippet from the horse's mouth:
> >>
> >>
> >> "When we say that GPLv2 and GPLv3 are incompatible, it means the
From: "Bobby Moretti" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> Well, I wouldn't call SAGE a single program.
>
> The issue is complicated, and I doubt a lawyer would agree.
>
> Besides, that's exactly what
>> commercial CAS's do. In particular, Maple includes gmp and a series of
>> other
>> programs under separate
On 7/29/07, Alec Mihailovs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> From: "Bobby Moretti" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> >> Well, I wouldn't call SAGE a single program.
> >
> > The issue is complicated, and I doubt a lawyer would agree.
> >
> > Besides, that's exactly what
> >> commercial CAS's do. In particular,
From: "Bobby Moretti" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> It would be one thing if SAGE was just a distribution of software,
> with a package management system. But SAGE contains (lots) of code
> that wraps these libraries and provides a unified interface to them.
> I'm fairly confident that this falls under
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Creative Commons creates a legal equivalent of public domain where it doesn't
> already exist. At that point, Microsoft can use it, improve / harm it in any
> way they like, take all the credit, and turn a profit. It's essentially a
> license to relicense it under y
The build is complete. I actually ended up doing it in two passes. The
first pass was a simple "make -j" which took about 18 minutes:
real18m8.232s
user26m41.442s
sys 6m41.761s
This is a 2P. Interestingly enough, the load average got up into the
60s at one point, but the system never
2007/7/28, William Stein <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> I think you should just implement all of the above and send me
> a patch. :-).
I had some time to kill on the plane, and I decided to follow your
advice :) . I've attached the 3 patches.
And for pth norm, I meant the l_p norm
(http://mathworld.wolfr
"William Stein" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On 7/29/07, David Joyner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> > Does that sound reasonable to sage-devel?
>>
>> Sounds good to me..
>>
>> BTW, anything I contributed can be released under "GPL v2 or later".
>> Also, I checked that GAP is distributed that wa
On 7/29/07, Alec Mihailovs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> From: "Bobby Moretti" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >
> > It would be one thing if SAGE was just a distribution of software,
> > with a package management system. But SAGE contains (lots) of code
> > that wraps these libraries and provides a unified
32 matches
Mail list logo
