Re: Thoughts about gnuplot license and copyrights

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

Timoth=E9e Lecomte wrote:
> Dave Denholm wrote:
>=20
>=20
>>Timoth=E9e Lecomte <tim...@en...> writes:
>>=20
>>
>>
>>>Robert Hart wrote:
>>>  =20
>>>
>>>
>>>>>IMHO the gnuplot license is very close to the standard BSD license, =
which
>>>>>imposes fewer restrictions than the GPL.
>>>>>      =20
>>>>>
>>
>>My understanding is that GPL comes with lots of words of legalese,
>>but most of the restrictions are designed to prevent any one person
>=20
>>from restricting anyone else from doing what they want with the code.
>=20
>>BSD has few legal restrictions, but means that someone can modify the
>>source and then distribute with more restrictions (including binary onl=
y).
>>
>>The one thing I do tend to feel strongly about is that if I put in
>>time developing open-source software, I don't want someone else
>>exploiting it for profit. BSD license doesn't prevent that, though GPL
>>probably does.
>>=20
>>
>=20
> Yes, I agree with this. My feeling is that the gpl is really the result
> of a deep thinking to preserve copyleft, not only a long-and-unreadable
> text.
>=20
>=20
>>>>The purpose of the GPL, is not (just) to allow forks, or other indepe=
ndent
>>>>developments and patches, but also to allow code to be reused in enti=
rely
>>>>separate projects. AFAICT, there is nothing in the gnuplot license th=
at
>>>>would let me (say) use the gnuplot terminal drivers as the start poin=
t for
>>>>some other graphical program.=20
>>>>
>>
>>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..?)
>>=20
>>
>=20
> To my mind, a 'partial set of unmodified sources' is to understand as a
> 'complete modified source tree' according to the current copyright.
>=20
>=20
>>However, it doesn't prevent you from designing and distributing a
>>program which uses the same interface, allowing people who download it
>>to link it locally with gnuplot terminal drivers. Well, that was one
>>of the notions behind the terminal driver changes described in
>>term/README
>>
>>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.
>>
>>For a while, we (well, I) was considering breaking gnuplot into layers
>>of libraries, with the lowest layer offering access to the graphics
>>drivers, and the highest layer offering most of the gnuplot
>>functionality. The gnuplot program would then just be a thin client of
>>the library. But that never happened.
>>=20
>>
>=20
> Well, that may happen one day ;-)
> I agree that linking is possible provided some conditions (mostly a
> 'local linking') but it's definetely complicated !
>=20
>=20
>>>>whilst happy to use gnuplot, are reluctant to get too involved in
>>>>developing it because of that.
>>>>
>>
>>[ reordering slightly]
>>
>>
>>>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 ?
>>>  =20
>>>
>>
>>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 ;-)
>>=20
>>
>=20
> On my side, I had some time this year to contribute to an open-source
> project, and focused on gnuplot after having used octave for my physics
> studies. Letting others benefit from my work is one of my primary goal =
!
> And I would rather give my energy in something that I'm sure it has a
> stable future.
>=20
>=20
>>I was going to say that even if we can no longer make releases,
>>there's always the CVS that people can download the source
>>from. However, looking at the copyright again, could it be said that
>>having the CVS available on the internet is a violation of
>>
>>* Permission to modify the software is granted, but not the right to
>>* distribute the complete modified source code.
>>=20
>>
>=20
> You're probably right. I assume that cvs is used with the private
> agreement of Thomas.
>=20
>=20
>>>(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),
>>>  =20
>>>
>>
>>Again, the license prevents distribution of such a work, but you can
>>do anything you like with the sources locally.
>>=20
>>
>=20
> On the contrary, I was thinking of a way to satisfy gnuplot's license,
> ie to distribute the work as a patch plus the original source code...
> But anyway it's not reliable.
>=20
>=20
>>>* 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 agreemen=
t
>>>of somebody which may one day be unjoinable.
>>>
>>
>>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..
>>
>>
>>dd
>>=20
>>
>=20
> Yes, it should be better in the short run than the current situation.
> But it's not really satisfying... as we will then rely on this trusted
> nominee, which can also become unjoinable one day... unless the nominee
> can name his successor if he wants to give away his responsibility...
>=20
> I would really prefer to solve the whole licensing issue (easy release =
+
> code reusability), either by choosing a well-known license (gpl or
> compatible), or by allowing redistribution of modified source code and
> binaries without restriction.

Don't know if I agree with the extent of that.  That basically means no c=
opyright whatsoever.  I'm not really against using open software in a pat=
ched way.  But there has to be some indication by the person doing the di=
stribution that said project was mainly developed by others and made avai=
lable freely and there is no warranty attributed to the original source.

It's a fair use issue as I see it.  If someone sells a software product t=
hat utilizes gnuplot, would that be breaking the copyright?  Maybe, maybe=
 not, but I'll hazard a guess no because RedHat, et al. would be in viola=
tion.  But to do so and not make it readily known that gnuplot is in fact=
 available elsewhere and not part of said product is misleading and unfai=
r.

Dan