RE: [Axiom-legal] Licensing Aldor (was: GPL vs. modified BSD)

[Bill Page]

Frederic,

On November 21, 2006 3:54 AM you wrote:

> On Mon, Nov 20, 2006 at 11:28:06PM -0500, Bill Page wrote:
> 
> > Yes, to me too. But the delay is really deadly. In my opinion we
> > (the Axiom project) would have been much better off if we had
> > known two or three years ago whether or not Aldor was going to
> > be part of Axiom or not. If the answer had been "no", we would be
> > struggling but at least work would now be well underway to improve
> > SPAD and to write new algebra code. If the answer had been "yes"
> > then the work to re-write the Axiom algebra library would likely
> > be near completion and many people would be involved in writing
> > new algebra code. But because there has been no decision for so
> > long, the result is that nearly everything concerning the algebra
> > is "on hold" and otherwise enthusiastic people (such as those
> > developing Sage right now) don't want to touch Axiom because of
> > the overwhelming amount of legacy code and uncertainty about
> > Aldor - the only interesting part to many people with a computer
> > science orientation. (Gaby being a fortunate exception :-)
> 
> Do not blame others for your own mistakes. From day one in Axiom
> community I am advocating using and enhancing (and fixing) the
> already existing Axiom (old) *free* compiler. (To my eyes non-free
> code does not even exist and is doomed to join the trash.)

Aldor is "almost free" (perhaps you will claim that there is no
such thing?). Many people have copies of the Aldor source and
binary versions are publicly available.

> I have been constantly contradicted by people like you (and Ralf
> if I do not mistake) who where 'waiting for Aldor', the 'future'
> of Axiom.

Actually Aldor is the past of Axiom. Aldor was developed by the
same IBM research group that developed Axiom. And Aldor (then
named AXIOM/XL) was a part of Axiom the last time Axiom was
available as a commercial product. And a significant amount of
work has already been done to convert the Axiom library to Aldor.

But you are wrong that I am against the improvement of SPAD. I
just believe that it is too difficult a problem for a volunteer-
based open source project. Apparently it was even too difficult
for the original Axiom developers. That is why they wanted to
develop Aldor.

> Now you measure the failure of your option. This way of seeing
> things (not fixing the current compiler) has pissed me off and
> has (for the moment) much lowered my interest in Axiom ('waiting
> for Aldor' as it seems it ever has been since I known it,
> commercially or as a free software project, but more than 10
> years have passed since then...).
>

??? But Aldor was part of the last commercial release of Axiom.
 
> For your own information, I have looked into the old compiler to
> see if I was able to fix things I consider critical (being able
> to have variables instead of constants in domains and category
> calls, something Aldor is able to do).

Is Aldor really able to do that? Wouldn't that violate the principle
that types are static?

> I felt very alone at that time (it was before Gaby's involvement
> and everybody was looking for a wiki, and / or a graphical interface
> in Java at that time). I have to confess I have not been able to
> understand sufficiently well how the old compiler does work to be
> able to fix it (I am not the right person for this kind of job).
> Future will tell if such tasks will be achieved and will resurrect
> my interest for Axiom.
> 

I am not optimistic about the possibility to do this.

> I find your own attitude (petition, threat of violating their
> rights on the code) with respect to NAG and other Aldor copyright
> owners very rude and unacceptable. A very bad example from the
> free software community that does to encourage companies to
> participate in free software project and communities.
>

But you are making a mistake. Petitions for open source are very
common. That more than 50 people have stated publicly via the online
petition that they think open source Aldor is a good idea (including
Steven Watt, the primary developer of Aldor). As to "threats of
violating their rights", I think you greatly overstate the situation.
Since everyone agrees that Aldor should be open source, I was only
proposing a way to proceed - open the code now and fix the licensing
issues later.
 
> ...
> > > Morally, re-licensing the code willy-nilly would be about the
> > > same as taking GPL code and incorporating it into a commercial
> > > product.
> > 
> > There is nothing legal about using GPL code in a commercial
> > product.
> 
> I suppose you meant 'illegal' or 'proprietary' (otherwise, it is
> nonsense).

Yes.

> 
> > Well, yes copyright law does require the permission of copyright
> > holders. Violating the wishes of the copyright holders could
> > leave one open to a law suit but Tim has already explained why
> > such action is very unlikely.
> 
> So let's do it? You will never been followed by the rest of the
> larger free software community.
>

This is a discussion. It is not about asking anyone to follow.
 
> > ... 
> > Which license? As far as I can tell, what I was proposing in terms
> > of releasing Aldor source under the Aldor Public License would
> > conform perfectly with that license. Releasing Aldor under GPL
> > would be more restrictive but compatible with the Aldor Public
> > License.
> 
> Releasing a code under GPL with binary blobs without their source is
> contradicting the GPL itself (and makes the code undistributable).
>

I was talking about release Aldor source code (no binary blobs) under
the Aldor Public License.
 
> > > Anyway, Mike Dewar and Dr. Watt are still working on it, which is
> > > excellent news and may render this whole discussion moot.
> 
> > I certainly hope so. :-)
> 
> Honestly I only look at what they have already achieved (actually
> publish Axiom as open source). The promises do not count. Only for
> those who want to believe them and they may hurt more than those who
> dwell on them.
> 

To me it is a matter of making best use of (potentially) available
intellectual investment. Right now both Axiom and Aldor are suffering
because what was meant to be together was "sold" separately.

Regards,
Bill Page.