Re: Thoughts about gnuplot license and copyrights

[<tim...@en...>]

Robert Hart wrote:

> =20
>
>>IMHO the gnuplot license is very close to the standard BSD license, whi=
ch
>>   =20
>>
>>imposes fewer restrictions than the GPL.
>>   =20
>>
>
>The purpose of the GPL, is not (just) to allow forks, or other independe=
nt
>developments and patches, but also to allow code to be reused in entirel=
y
>separate projects. AFAICT, there is nothing in the gnuplot license that
>would let me (say) use the gnuplot terminal drivers as the start point f=
or
>some other graphical program.=20
>
>Additionally, I think there is a lot to be said for going with one of th=
e
>more standard licenses. If it actually is BSD, or GPL or LGPL, or MPL,
>then people know what that means. Whereas the gnuplot license seems to
>cause no end of confusion (partly due to the unfortunate coincidence in
>the use of "GNU" as part of the name), and I know people like myself,
>whilst happy to use gnuplot, are reluctant to get too involved in
>developing it because of that.
>
>Rob
> =20
>
I agree with you, Robert. You have pointed out two important points :

* gpl, bsd, lgpl, mpl are more explicit concerning the reuse of existing
code in other projects. The current gnuplot doesn't even seem to talk
about this case, and we probably have to conclude that it is forbidden
(I can't imagine somebody writing a script that patches the original
source code, and then uses this modified code to patch his own code...
as we might guess from the current copyright),

* gpl, bsd, lgpl, mpl and other all allow to distribute modified code (I
mean in usual form, not as a patch, and without asking for permission).
This allows forks, but the most important is that it allows gnuplot
developpers to release when they want, without relying on the agreement
of somebody which may one day be unjoinable.

I am exactly asking myself the same thing : is it worth getting
seriously involved in gnuplot, if it someday vanishes just because
Thomas won't be joinable to give his agreement ?

Can we help this situation to evolve for good ?

Thank you very much for your condideration.

Best regards,

Timoth=E9e Lecomte

___________________________

As a reference, here is the "Modified BSD license" (i.e. original BSD
without a point on advertising) :

    Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or without
modification, are permitted provided that the following conditions are me=
t:
       1. Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright
notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer.
       2. Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the above
copyright notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer
in the documentation and/or other materials provided with the distributio=
n.
       3. The name of the author may not be used to endorse or promote
products derived from this software without specific prior written
permission.
    THIS SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED BY THE AUTHOR ``AS IS'' AND [etc. : the
author is not responsible of possible damage caused by the software].

As you can see, the BSD license is really more "libre" that the gnuplot
one is.