[Numpy-discussion] [IPython-dev] glumpy, fast opengl visualization

Rohit Garg rpg.314 at gmail.com
Wed Jan 27 14:50:12 EST 2010

Looks like the license change is done.


On Tue, Jan 26, 2010 at 5:41 AM, Fernando Perez <fperez.net at gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi Nicolas,
> On Mon, Jan 25, 2010 at 2:46 AM, Nicolas Rougier
> <Nicolas.Rougier at loria.fr> wrote:
>> Hello,
>> This is an update about glumpy, a fast-OpenGL based numpy visualization.
>> I modified the code such that the only dependencies are PyOpenGL and
>> IPython (for interactive sessions). You will also need matplotlib and
>> scipy for some demos.
>> Sources: hg clone http://glumpy.googlecode.com/hg/ glumpy
>> No installation required, you can run all demos inplace.
>> Homepage: http://code.google.com/p/glumpy/
> This is great, and it would be very cool to have it updated to the new
> code we're now landing in ipython with a much cleaner internal API
> (finally :)  Have you had a chance to look at the code in my trunk-dev
> branch?
> https://code.launchpad.net/~fdo.perez/ipython/trunk-dev
> Brian finished a large review of it and we just had a chance to go
> over his feedback directly, so there's now one more round of reviews
> to do (once he applies the changes from our discussion) and this
> should become trunk very soon.  The apis are much cleaner, this is the
> big cleanup I told you about last year, and now we're getting to the
> point where having multiple ipython frontends is a very realistic
> prospect.
> Unfortunately we won't be able to use your code directly in IPython as
> it stands, since the GPL provisions in it would require us to GPL all
> of IPython to make use of any of it directly in IPython.  Your code
> uses iptyhon, numpy, matplotlib and scipy (in some demos), which
> amounts to hundreds of thousands of lines of code; here are the
> sloccount outputs from their respective trunks:
> IPython
> Totals grouped by language (dominant language first):
> python:       47357 (99.24%)
> lisp:           262 (0.55%)
> sh:              62 (0.13%)
> objc:            37 (0.08%)
> Numpy
> Totals grouped by language (dominant language first):
> ansic:       152950 (67.19%)
> python:       73188 (32.15%)
> cpp:            828 (0.36%)
> fortran:        298 (0.13%)
> sh:             156 (0.07%)
> pascal:         120 (0.05%)
> f90:             97 (0.04%)
> Matplotlib
> Totals grouped by language (dominant language first):
> python:       83290 (52.64%)
> cpp:          68212 (43.11%)
> objc:          4517 (2.85%)
> ansic:         2149 (1.36%)
> sh:              69 (0.04%)
> Scipy
> Totals grouped by language (dominant language first):
> cpp:         220149 (48.35%)
> fortran:      87240 (19.16%)
> python:       79164 (17.38%)
> ansic:        68746 (15.10%)
> sh:              61 (0.01%)
> Glumpy:
> Totals grouped by language (dominant language first):
> python:        3751 (100.00%)
> We're looking at ~300.000 lines of python alone in these tools.  It's
> unfortunately not realistic for us to consider GPL-ing them in order
> to incorporate glumpy into the core set; it would be fantastic if you
> were willing to consider licensing your code under a license that is
> compatible with the body of work you are building on top of.
> You are obviously free to choose your license as you see fit, and end
> users (myself included) will be always able to use glumpy along with
> ipython, numpy, matplotlib and scipy.  So *users* get all of the
> benefit of your contribution, and for that I am the first to be
> delighted and grateful that you've put your code out there.
> But as it stands, your code builds on close to half a million lines of
> other code which can not benefit back from your contributions.  If you
> consider licensing glumpy to be compatible with ipython, numpy and
> matplotlib, it would be possible to incorporate your ideas back into
> those projects: perhaps in some places the right solution would be to
> fix our own designs to better provide what glumpy needs, in other
> cases we may find fixes you've made fit better upstream, etc.
> But this kind of collaboration will not be possible as long as glumpy
> can benefit from our tools but our codes are not allowed to benefit
> from glumpy (without changing licenses, which isn't going to happen).
> I hope you consider this from our perspective and in the most friendly
> and open manner: I completely respect your right to license your own
> code as you see fit (I've seen people put out GPL 'projects' that
> effectively consist of 3 lines that import IPython and make a function
> call, and that's OK too, and allowed by the license I chose to use).
> The only reason I ask you is because I think your tool is very
> interesting, and it would ultimately lead to a much more productive
> relationship with ipython, numpy and matplotlib if it could be a
> collaboration instead of a one-way benefit.
> Best regards,
> Fernando.
> _______________________________________________
> NumPy-Discussion mailing list
> NumPy-Discussion at scipy.org
> http://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion

Rohit Garg


Senior Undergraduate
Department of Physics
Indian Institute of Technology

More information about the NumPy-Discussion mailing list