|
From: Lars H. <lhe...@us...> - 2006-01-19 15:43:41
|
Dave Denholm writes: [...] > It may prevent the gnuplot terminal drivers from being > distributed with another program. (Maybe not : it says you cannot > distribute complete modified source tree, but doesn't see you cannot > distribute a partial set of unmodified sources..?) This only serves to demonstrate how badly thought out the license is in the first place. Along with your cvs example further down. > I guess an analogy would be with gnu readline : the GPL > prevents us from distributing a gnuplot binary that links with it, but > someone building from source can link *their* copy with gnu readline. Readline is a fscked up case: it should really be distributed under LGPL rather than GPL ... > Depends on your motives : when I got involved with gnuplot, it was > because *I* was using it a lot, and I wanted to improve it for my own > use. Contributing the changes let others benefit from them, but more > importantly, meant I didn't have to rework the changes locally when a > new version came out. At the time, I didn't realise how rare new > releases were ;-) That pretty much sums it up for me, too ;-) > Maybe one way out is to persuade Thomas Williams to grant permission > to a trusted nominee to release as and when required. Thomas would > retain the option to revoke that permission at a time of his choosing, > but it does mean that if he does vanish, there is one other person can > release.. I must add that getting permission for a release, while it sounds like a big thing, was never a problem - my ipression was rather that tw is happy enough to see ongoing development. There waws a discussion about backwards-compatibility before the 4.0 release, due the syntax changes, but that was resolved quickly (the 4.x branch will continue to accept the old syntax). Once this discussion is settled, I will write up a summary and raise all the valid points with tw. It would be nice if at the same time I was in a position to tell him we're closing in on a new release :) |