gnuplot-beta

Re: pdf library for gnuplot

[Hans-Bernhard B. <br...@ph...>]

On Tue, 20 Apr 2004, Xiaodong Zhou wrote:

> I checked the previous discussion about pdf lib. It seems to
> me that the pdflib from http://www.pdflib.com cannot be used
> for gnuplot. 

But it can!  We just don't see that we can distribute precompiled binaries
with PDFLib built in, given the terms of the PDFLib Lite licence.

> There is a another pdf lib from http://www.fastio.com/.
> Here is the quote for its license, 
> 
> "
>  ClibPDF is a library of ANSI C functions, distributed as source code,
> for creating PDF files directly via C language programs without relying
> on any Adobe Acrobat(R) tools and related products.  It is free for
> private, non-profit use, but a commercial license is required for
> for-profit applications"

That's considerably more restrictive than the PDFlib Lite license.  If we
can't use PDFlib Lite, we certainly can't use a library with the above
terms.

> Could it be possible to bundle it with gnuplot? or the gnuplot
> supports only pdf lib from http://www.pdflib.com?

As of now, only PDFLib is supported.

-- 
Hans-Bernhard Broeker (br...@ph...)
Even if all the snow were burnt, ashes would remain.

Re: pdf library for gnuplot

[<xia...@so...>]

> 
> On Tue, 20 Apr 2004, Xiaodong Zhou wrote:
> 
> > I checked the previous discussion about pdf lib. It seems to
> > me that the pdflib from http://www.pdflib.com cannot be used
> > for gnuplot. 
> 
> But it can!  We just don't see that we can distribute precompiled binaries
> with PDFLib built in, given the terms of the PDFLib Lite licence.


You are right that pdflib can be compiled with gnuplot.

Even though PDFLib Lite license is less restrictive than ClibPDF lib,
the result is the same for gnuplot. Precompiled binary cannot have built-in
support for pdf.

There is another pdf lib with both GPL and LGPL license

http://www.stillhq.com/cgi-bin/getpage?area=panda

Could it be helpful?

Xiaodong Zhou
Ch: free C/C++ interpreter
http://www.softintegration.com

> 
> > There is a another pdf lib from http://www.fastio.com/.
> > Here is the quote for its license, 
> > 
> > "
> >  ClibPDF is a library of ANSI C functions, distributed as source code,
> > for creating PDF files directly via C language programs without relying
> > on any Adobe Acrobat(R) tools and related products.  It is free for
> > private, non-profit use, but a commercial license is required for
> > for-profit applications"
> 
> That's considerably more restrictive than the PDFlib Lite license.  If we
> can't use PDFlib Lite, we certainly can't use a library with the above
> terms.
> 
> > Could it be possible to bundle it with gnuplot? or the gnuplot
> > supports only pdf lib from http://www.pdflib.com?
> 
> As of now, only PDFLib is supported.
> 
> -- 
> Hans-Bernhard Broeker (br...@ph...)
> Even if all the snow were burnt, ashes would remain.
> 
> 

Re: pdf library for gnuplot

[Hans-Bernhard B. <br...@ph...>]

On Tue, 20 Apr 2004, Xiaodong Zhou wrote:

> There is another pdf lib with both GPL and LGPL license
> 
> http://www.stillhq.com/cgi-bin/getpage?area=panda

GPL would be out, I think --- gnuplot's license is incompatible enough
with the GPL that we can't distribute binaries linked to GPL code.  LGPL
should work, though.

> Could it be helpful?

Sure.  If we can find a volunteer to rewrite pdf.trm to use it instead of
PDFLib, that is, and if the parts they took out to make the whole thing
LGPL-able don't make it unuseable.

-- 
Hans-Bernhard Broeker (br...@ph...)
Even if all the snow were burnt, ashes would remain.

Re: pdf library for gnuplot

[Petr M. <mi...@ph...>]

> GPL would be out, I think --- gnuplot's license is incompatible enough
> with the GPL that we can't distribute binaries linked to GPL code.  LGPL
> should work, though.

What about GNU readline? Gnuplot cannot distribute binaries with that
library? (No, it is not used in the OS/2 build.)

--
PM

Re: pdf library for gnuplot

[Hans-Bernhard B. <br...@ph...>]

On Wed, 21 Apr 2004, Petr Mikulik wrote:

> > GPL would be out, I think --- gnuplot's license is incompatible enough
> > with the GPL that we can't distribute binaries linked to GPL code.  LGPL
> > should work, though.
> 
> What about GNU readline? Gnuplot cannot distribute binaries with that
> library? 

As I (and some rather more important other people) read the GPL: I don't
think so.  Not unless we can present legally solid analysis that proves
our license compatible with the GPL.  I don't think it is, because of
this clause in our license:

 * Permission to modify the software is granted, but not the right to
 * distribute the complete modified source code.  Modifications are to
 * be distributed as patches to the released version.

-- 
Hans-Bernhard Broeker (br...@ph...)
Even if all the snow were burnt, ashes would remain.

Re: pdf library for gnuplot

[Daniel J S. <dan...@ie...>]

Hans-Bernhard Broeker wrote:

>On Wed, 21 Apr 2004, Petr Mikulik wrote:
>
>  
>
>>>GPL would be out, I think --- gnuplot's license is incompatible enough
>>>with the GPL that we can't distribute binaries linked to GPL code.  LGPL
>>>should work, though.
>>>      
>>>
>>What about GNU readline? Gnuplot cannot distribute binaries with that
>>library? 
>>    
>>
>
>As I (and some rather more important other people) read the GPL: I don't
>think so.  Not unless we can present legally solid analysis that proves
>our license compatible with the GPL.  I don't think it is, because of
>this clause in our license:
>
> * Permission to modify the software is granted, but not the right to
> * distribute the complete modified source code.  Modifications are to
> * be distributed as patches to the released version.
>

You are identifying, then, the difference between the Gnuplot license 
and an existing license.  This is one of the items that the Open Source 
Initiative is asking for  so that they can discuss things.

However, are you thinking that this particular sentence is a significant 
enough variation that it would cause the OSI to not allow it?  I guess 
in principle this is saying that someone can't create their own 
"developer" version of the software, that is bifurcate so there are two 
versions floating about.  The Gnuplot notice does go on to very 
explicitly discuss that it is allowable to distribute modified programs 
in the form of binaries and how that can be done.

 I think that the easiest route might be for someone to assemble the 
presentation the OSI wants and attempt to get the Gnuplot license 
verified.  It is at least worth a try I would think.

Dan

Re: pdf library for gnuplot

[Hans-Bernhard B. <br...@ph...>]

On Wed, 21 Apr 2004, Daniel J Sebald wrote:

> Hans-Bernhard Broeker wrote:

> >As I (and some rather more important other people) read the GPL: I don't
> >think so.  Not unless we can present legally solid analysis that proves
> >our license compatible with the GPL.  I don't think it is, because of
> >this clause in our license:
> >
> > * Permission to modify the software is granted, but not the right to
> > * distribute the complete modified source code.  Modifications are to
> > * be distributed as patches to the released version.
> >
> 
> You are identifying, then, the difference between the Gnuplot license 
> and an existing license.  This is one of the items that the Open Source 
> Initiative is asking for  so that they can discuss things.
> 
> However, are you thinking that this particular sentence is a significant 
> enough variation that it would cause the OSI to not allow it?  

For the issue at hand, the opinion, actually even the very existence, of
the OSI is a complete non-issue.  We're talking about GPL compatibility
here, for which the only relevant documents are our own license and the
text of the GPL.

> I guess in principle this is saying that someone can't create their own
> "developer" version of the software, that is bifurcate so there are two
> versions floating about.

Among other things.  It also means Linux distributors can't just
distribute patched source tarballs.  Most don't do that anyway, but our
statement says they're not *allowed* to.  And that is at odds with the
GPL.

-- 
Hans-Bernhard Broeker (br...@ph...)
Even if all the snow were burnt, ashes would remain.

Re: pdf library for gnuplot

[Daniel J S. <dan...@ie...>]

Hans-Bernhard Broeker wrote:

>On Wed, 21 Apr 2004, Daniel J Sebald wrote:
>
>  
>
>>Hans-Bernhard Broeker wrote:
>>    
>>
>
>  
>
>>>As I (and some rather more important other people) read the GPL: I don't
>>>think so.  Not unless we can present legally solid analysis that proves
>>>our license compatible with the GPL.  I don't think it is, because of
>>>this clause in our license:
>>>
>>>* Permission to modify the software is granted, but not the right to
>>>* distribute the complete modified source code.  Modifications are to
>>>* be distributed as patches to the released version.
>>>
>>>      
>>>
>>You are identifying, then, the difference between the Gnuplot license 
>>and an existing license.  This is one of the items that the Open Source 
>>Initiative is asking for  so that they can discuss things.
>>
>>However, are you thinking that this particular sentence is a significant 
>>enough variation that it would cause the OSI to not allow it?  
>>    
>>
>
>For the issue at hand, the opinion, actually even the very existence, of
>the OSI is a complete non-issue.
>

But isn't the requirement for PDF  code in the binaries (by that 
company) that the Gnuplot license be OSI certified?  Then there are not 
problems?

Dan

Re: pdf library for gnuplot

[Hans-Bernhard B. <br...@ph...>]

[...]
> >For the issue at hand, the opinion, actually even the very existence, of
> >the OSI is a complete non-issue.

> But isn't the requirement for PDF  code in the binaries (by that 
> company) that the Gnuplot license be OSI certified?  Then there are not 
> problems?

The discussion has drifted from that topic to Gnuplot vs. GPLed libraries
since.

-- 
Hans-Bernhard Broeker (br...@ph...)
Even if all the snow were burnt, ashes would remain.