From: Daniel J S. <dan...@ie...> - 2006-01-20 04:33:29
|
Petr Mikulik wrote: >> Therefore I ask that any modifications be contributed back to the >> primary source tree, and/or be distributed as patches to it. That >> way everyone gets the benefit of external additions or development, >> but they are also guaranteed to receive the original source and >> modifications to it > > > (La)TeX community has also such a kind of license: do whatever you want > with my code, but never call it the same if you distribute modified > versions. > > (I vaguely remember a rumour that Debian had troubles even with > D.E.Knuth's license of TeX -- after he's gone, the version is set to pi > and no modification is allowed -- but that would be too hard decision > not to allow to package TeX for license religious reasons.) TeX is sort of unique, it was developed by one person (I'm guessing) and copyright clearly falls to that individual. Furthermore, he's made clear the intention. But LaTeX is often the interface of choice for TeX. If it is a solid core that remains unchanged (maybe a thing or two here or there could be better) then freezing may be a service. Was there ever an analogous sort of thing in gnuplot? > >> But yes, it is a real problem if the original rights holder[s] to such >> a work go missing or inactive. My only answer to that is a hope >> that, at least in the case of scientific software, any person who >> cared enough about the code to set those terms in the first place >> also cares enough to eventually hand on the torch to someone >> else so that both the project itself and the quality-control mechanism >> continues on into the future. > > > Sourceforge is full of dead projects -- once the main author disappears, > others have not enough rights to continue. Hence my comments about some oversight group. Perhaps the day will come twenty years from now where so little activity in gnuplot takes place because it is such shiny sparkling, bug free stellar code. Or maybe it will evolve in a way that outer layers can be placed on some core program. Who knows? You'd still like some group of people there to oversee copyright. > >> They stop short of authorizing forks, although the distinction between >> a modification and a fork is rather vague. >> >> Perhaps Thomas Williams would be willing to authorize periodic >> releases by the cvs development team, while retaining veto power? > > >> I have great sympathy for the current gnuplot license, but >> I agree that somehow we need to negotiate a guarantee that >> the code can continue to be developed, and that there is some >> mechanism in the future for anointing "official" release versions >> on which subsequent patches are based. > > > That would be fine. Gnuplot developers (defined to be those having right > to contribute to cvs) would be approved to continue gnuplot development, > support and releases. Wouldn't you think it should be copyright holders who have that authority? Having access to CVS doesn't seem to me to have a legal basis. Someone's signature on a piece of paper at a lawyer's office in Belgium might... or make that Paris (rather than have the document sent to them for notarizing, developers could travel there). Dan |