GMP license problem, anyone?

Bill Hart goodwillhart at
Fri May 30 15:50:59 CEST 2008

No I didn't reply privately intentionally. But I checked the header
and apparently I did only reply to you. It was meant to go to the

As for your comments below, I think you need to just cool off.

You also know damned well what merging a patch means. It means someone
offers code to you which does something for GMP and you include that
code in an official release of GMP with perhaps some work to integrate
it with the existing code. You are the maintainer after all. That is
one of the well understood functions of a maintainer.

I didn't ask whether you had asked for large sums of money to do
targetted development of GMP. I asked if you had asked for a large sum
of money to merge a patch. You could answer:

1) No.
2) I was joking around with the guy and he took it the wrong way.
3) His patch required an extraordinary amount of work to merge and
would have taken many months to do.
4) I particularly didn't want that patch in GMP, and the amount I
asked for was a measure of how much I didn't want it.
5) Someone else indicated to me that the amount I asked was what they
would offer for a similar job, so that was what it was worth to me.
6) The guy was pushy and wanted it done by a certain time and it would
effectively cost me that much.
7) I would potentially lose a large contract if I merged that patch,
and that was the amount I would lose.
8) etc.

....any one of which would be a perfectly reasonable answer in my opinion.

I'm not painting you out to be anything. You regularly deal
offensively with people who try to submit bug reports, code and
questions to the GMP project in good faith. I've been on the receiving
end of it, and so have a number of my colleagues. Your own terse
responses are on record on your own list and in the offlist flames we
have received by email from you. You've threatened to sue at least
three people I know who have tried to contribute to the project or
interact with you about it in good faith. You are painting yourself!

And I am telling you that at least one person I know told me you asked
them for money for merging a patch. Clearly not everything I've been
told is true. I believe you that you haven't made any real money out
of GMP. You told me how much you made, and I agree, it's not much.

But asking you whether what I was told, by someone - the person
involved - is true, is not libelous, and you know that. I was told
this, that is a fact, Whether what I was told was true, well I only
have their word for it, so I'm asking you.

I won't even bother replying to the other rubbish you write below.
People can make their own judgement about you and about me. You can go
ahead and make up whatever you like. People won't believe it anyway,
and I just checked my bank balance, and that didn't go down either.


On 30/05/2008, Torbjorn Granlund <tg at> wrote:
> Did you reply privately intensionally?
>   Well, in his post to this *unmoderated* list (which was submitted
>   before mine, but is yet to appear), also viewable here:
> Are you suggesting that I censor the list?
>  You surely have lots of energy for writing email, but I think your
>  judgement is failing you.
>   I have been told SAGE will have an MSR special version which will be
>   GPLv2+. As I have visited MSR and one of their researchers was very
>   keen to use FLINT, I want FLINT to be in the MSR special version.
> Making private releases of GPL/LGPL software is bending the license.
>  And you're upset that maple, Mathematic, and Magma are making money
>  from (L)GPL code, then SAGE is making private releases which includes
>  L(GPL) code for a fee (call it donation)?
>  Making special private releases is taking away the freedom that is the
>  very essense of the L(GPL).
>   I don't see how a fork will sabotage GMP.
> I am sure you know better than this.
>   > Sorry, but what does "merge a patch by myself" mean?
>   Someone else claimed, and I'm not stating it is fact, merely that they
>   claimed, that they wrote a patch for GMP and you asked them for an
>   inordinately large sum of money to merge it into GMP.
> You're not responding to the quoted question.  You are spreading lies.
>   Can you confirm that you have never asked for large sums of money to
>   include patches into GMP?
> Since you bend the truth merrily, I think you need your to define what
>  a "merge a patch by myself" means before I respond.  Becuase I do ask
>  money for targeted GMP development, and I (via Swox) have in the past
>  made deals about develoing GMP (as actually stated in the manual).
>  You're trying to paint me as a gready person who is trying to extort
>  money out of other peoples' work.  If you where under EU jurisdiction,
>  you would be liabla under law for spreading these defamatory lies.
>  I now got very tired of reading and writing replies to you now.  Don't
>  expect any more mail from me.
>  Do you deny you force your wife to have sex against her will?  I have
>  heard a rumor that you do.  Can you confirm that you never have raped
>  you wife?  Several people say you rape your wife.  There is also a
>  rumor that you drive very dangerously, and that you escaped arrest
>  once?  And I heard a persistent rumor that you are a very gready
>  person, is that true?
>  --
>  Torbjörn

More information about the gmp-discuss mailing list