gnuplot-beta

Re: Gnuplot concerns

[Lars H. <lhe...@us...>]

 The files you emailed us are meaningless. Word documents are not welcome on
 this list.

> 1.	We need to have no more than 1 license covering files in any one
> directory.  We have been advised against using software with mismatched
> licensing.
 
 All files without explicit licensing or copyright information are subject
 to the gnuplot Copyright terms

  http://cvs.sourceforge.net/viewcvs.py/gnuplot/gnuplot/Copyright?view=auto

> 2.	There are several files without any licensing information.  We
> have been advised that we would be putting ourselves at risk if we do
> not have specific licensing information for every file. 
 
 See above.

> 3.	There are several files without any copyright.  We have also
> been counseled that we would be putting ourselves at risk if we used
> files without any copyright on them. 
 
 See above.

Re: Gnuplot concerns

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

Lars Hecking wrote:
>  The files you emailed us are meaningless. Word documents are not welcome on
>  this list.

Also, emailing your lists as ASCII would have been one fourth the size.


> > 3.    There are several files without any copyright.
> 
> 
> Those are, ultimately, impossible requirements.  Among the files you
> listed, there are quite a lot that are generated by other tools we
> don't control, and some that simply cannot hold a license or copyright
> statement (graphics, e.g.).

Narrowing down the list might help developers identify (if any) files that definitely should have a copyright and license notice.  Did you run your list generating program before doing a compilation?

Dan

Re: Gnuplot concerns

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

Lars Hecking wrote:

>  All files without explicit licensing or copyright information are subject
>  to the gnuplot Copyright terms
> 
>   http://cvs.sourceforge.net/viewcvs.py/gnuplot/gnuplot/Copyright?view=auto

One thing that is slightly strange is

 * Copyright 1986 - 1993, 1998, 2004   Thomas Williams, Colin Kelley

I wonder why the copyright of 2004 should be attributed to Williams and Kelly if they were not contributors or didn't oversee development?

I don't know a whole lot of copyright law in the case of derived works, but wouldn't it make more sense to be something like

Copyright 1986 - 1993, 1998  Thomas Williams, Colin Kelly
Copyright 2004  Gnuplot Developer Group

and then have some kind of notice in the license that any third party patches considered an extension and used by the developer group will automatically become copyright by the developer group?

Dan

Re: Gnuplot concerns

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

Daniel J Sebald wrote:

> I wonder why the copyright of 2004 should be attributed to Williams and 
> Kelly if they were not contributors or didn't oversee development?

Formally, they did.  Well, one of them at least.  Every release in the 
last 10 years has been personally "blessed" by Mr. Williams himself.

> I don't know a whole lot of copyright law in the case of derived works, 
> but wouldn't it make more sense 

In my experience, (American) law and "making sense" are mutually 
exclusive concepts ;-(

 > to be something like
> 
> Copyright 1986 - 1993, 1998  Thomas Williams, Colin Kelly
> Copyright 2004  Gnuplot Developer Group

That would be quite impossible, because there is no legal entity called 
the "Gnuplot Developer Group" to which that 2004 copyright could 
possibly long. Moreover, the original authors could never have signed 
over copyright to this non-existing entity.

Re: Gnuplot concerns

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

Hans-Bernhard Broeker wrote:
> Daniel J Sebald wrote:
> 
>> I wonder why the copyright of 2004 should be attributed to Williams 
>> and Kelly if they were not contributors or didn't oversee development?
> 
> 
> Formally, they did.  Well, one of them at least.  Every release in the 
> last 10 years has been personally "blessed" by Mr. Williams himself.

I suppose, in a remote sense.

>> I don't know a whole lot of copyright law in the case of derived 
>> works, but wouldn't it make more sense 
> 
> 
> In my experience, (American) law and "making sense" are mutually 
> exclusive concepts ;-(

You're making a mockery of our legal system?!...  That's for us to do.

> 
>  > to be something like
> 
>>
>> Copyright 1986 - 1993, 1998  Thomas Williams, Colin Kelly
>> Copyright 2004  Gnuplot Developer Group
> 
> 
> That would be quite impossible, because there is no legal entity called 
> the "Gnuplot Developer Group" to which that 2004 copyright could 
> possibly long. Moreover, the original authors could never have signed 
> over copyright to this non-existing entity.

I suppose that is a big hole in the argument.  It would have to be a person or an actual corporation, which probably gets better protection than personal copyrights; you know how that goes.

Dan