Re: compiling SuiteSparse

[Sergei Steshenko]

----- Original Message -----
> From: Przemek Klosowski <address@hidden>
> To: 
> Cc: "address@hidden" <address@hidden>
> Sent: Tuesday, May 29, 2012 7:59 PM
> Subject: Re: compiling SuiteSparse
> 
> On 05/29/2012 11:35 AM, Sergei Steshenko wrote:
> 
>>  I myself both a "non-profit institution" and "other 
> organization"
>>  which (constantly) evaluates the SW for educational purposes. I.e. I
>>  am using Octave to educate myself.
>> 
>>  The license itself does not limit evaluation duration, and from time
>>  to time I switch to newer versions, so the evaluation period is
>>  significantly shorter than my life.
> 
> To me, 'evaluation' means
> 
> - a finite period of time where one ..

but of course - my lifespan is limited, isn't it ?

> - systematically tries different features of a product, to ..

sure - Octave (most likely) uses different features of the product through 
SuiteSparse;

> - determine whether such product is suitable for long-term use...

I am still trying to understand, the only problem is that 'metis', SuiteSparse 
and Octave new versions all the time kick in, so I constantly have to 
reevaluate. And, by the way, as non-profit organization I just can use:

"It can be freely used for educational and research purposes
by non-profit institutions";

> - and if so, make different arrangements for a such use.

of course, different arrangements - I modify my code, it downloads different 
tarballs, installs into different directories, etc;

> 
> Your method of evaluation doesn't seem to involve those steps.

Huh ? I have just shown you that my method involves _exactly_ those steps, and, 
since I am a non-profit organization, I don't need them in the first place. I 
can just use 'metis'.

> I am NOT 
> raising that as an issue; it's entirely your business and I have no say in 
> it. My point is that these problems, in my opinion, are caused by the strange 
> and impractical METIS license. The GNU license causes no such problems, and 
> that's why I prefer it greatly. I hope you might take another look at it and 
> like it better.

GNU license has a very severe problem of arbitrarily defining "derived work". 
This is well explained in Apache-2 license FAQ: 
http://www.apache.org/licenses/GPL-compatibility :

"
We avoid GPLv3 software because merely linking to it is considered by the
GPLv3 authors to create a derivative work. We want to honor their license.
Unless GPLv3 licensors relax this interpretation of their own license
regarding linking, our licensing philosophies are fundamentally
incompatible. This is an identical issue for both GPLv2 and GPLv3.
".


I choose licenses being led by my own egoistic interests. FWIW, part of my 
AppsFromScratch under GPL-2, two other parts are under LGPL, and the part most 
likely to be changed by end user is under Artistic license, so the end user 
won't have to bother with source redistribution is he/she doesn't want to.

That least restrictive part under Artistic license contains targets 
descriptions and hacks (if any) necessary to build the targets.

So, I promote no license. I just choose the ones I like, and for different 
purposes I like different licenses.

Regards,
  Sergei.