[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [Axiom-developer] [fricas-devel] Re: CAD package from Renaud Rioboo

From: Ralf Hemmecke
Subject: Re: [Axiom-developer] [fricas-devel] Re: CAD package from Renaud Rioboo
Date: Tue, 09 Sep 2014 16:57:12 +0200
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.0

On 09/09/2014 04:03 PM, Waldek Hebisch wrote:
> Thanks.  However, I have a compilable version for FriCAS.

Huh? Where?

> I have waited to have clear copyright situation.  Currently FriCAS is
> BSD licenced while IIRC the CAD pacakge is GPL.

GPL? What are your sources for this claim?

Axiom is BSD licensed. And Renaud Rioboo writes in

Recently Martin Rubey thought it could be a good idea to release them and I
have of course no objection on that point nor on sharing these sources with
the community. If there is some interest on it you may include it into the
Axiom distribution with the same permissions than the rest of the software.

While I wait for my lab to give me the necessary permissions to be able
to use
Axiom and export this software you may find it's sources at the unlisted url

That sounds as if that is licensing the source code under BSD. I don't
exactly understand what is meant by "permission to be able to use Axiom
and export this software". Maybe he meant the commercial version of Axiom.

> Including it in FriCAS would effectively change FriCAS licence to
> GPL.

In fact, I'd love FriCAS under GPL.

But no, if FriCAS includes a SPAD source package under GPL that doesn't
change the license of FriCAS to GPL. It changes the license of a
*binary* distribution to GPL, so that such a binary distribution must be
accompanied with sources and the whole thing must be GPL.

You would then still be allowed to distribute the FriCAS sources under
BSD with one (or several) source files under GPL. Since there is no
linking in the source-only distribution, nothing in the GPL 3.0 license
text says that a mere packaging of BSD and GPL files would automatically
make the BSD files be licensed under GPL. IANAL, but I'm pretty sure
that the FSF argues in the same way.


reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]