Re: Thoughts about gnuplot license and copyrights

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

Daniel J Sebald wrote:

> Timoth=E9e Lecomte wrote:
>
>> 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 copyright whatsoever.  I'm not really against using open software
> in a patched way.  But there has to be some indication by the person
> doing the distribution that said project was mainly developed by
> others and made available 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 that utilizes gnuplot, would that be breaking the copyright?=20
> Maybe, maybe not, but I'll hazard a guess no because RedHat, et al.
> would be in violation.  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 unfair.
>
> Dan=20

I did not want to mean 'without any restriction', but actually with
fewer restrictions than today.


Daniel J Sebald wrote:

> Petr Mikulik wrote:
>
>>> Perhaps Thomas Williams would be willing to authorize periodic
>>> releases by the cvs development team, while retaining veto power?
>>
>>> I have great sympathy for the current gnuplot license, but
>>> I agree that somehow we need to negotiate a guarantee that
>>> the code can continue to be developed, and that there is some
>>> mechanism in the future for anointing "official" release versions
>>> on which subsequent patches are based.
>>
>> That would be fine. Gnuplot developers (defined to be those having
>> right to contribute to cvs) would be approved to continue gnuplot
>> development, support and releases.
>
> Wouldn't you think it should be copyright holders who have that
> authority?  Having access to CVS doesn't seem to me to have a legal
> basis.  Someone's signature on a piece of paper at a lawyer's office
> in Belgium might... or make that Paris (rather than have the document
> sent to them for notarizing, developers could travel there).

We have to make a difference between "copyright holders" and
"maintainers" of the program :

"Copyright holders" are those who define how their code is allowed to be
used, modified, distributed. This is a legal definition, and the we can
pursue somebody who doesn't respect the license, thanks to this
copyright. Currently, Thomas is the copyright holder of most code in
gnuplot (along with other people, listed in the first mail of this
discussion). It won't change, unless he gives his copyright to another
person, but that's not a usual practise, and moreover that's not needed
provided the license he chooses is well defined.

Well defined ? This is where maintainers arrive. "Maintainers" are the
people who actually take care of the code, and distribute the program.
To my mind, it's more a practical definition than a legal one. Usually
it is the person or the group of people who decide when to release a new
version. Currently, as the license does ask for too much restriction on
released modified code (the patched way), the 'absolute' maintainer is
Thomas by default, as nobody is allowed to release a new version without
his agreement. This is the problem.

To solve this on the long-run, it's the license that has to be changed,
not the copyright holders. So if we want to do something, it is to
persuade Thomas to modify the license. It should allow somebody else to
release. Who ? Restricting this right to some named people is not a
long-standing solution, as these people could disappear. According to
what happens to almost every open source projects, the maintainers are
usually chosen by their activity on the project, and named from one to
another, but without really legal definition somewhere in the files.

I think we can all agree with the following : gnuplot development is
assured by a community, and this community is opened to everyone who
wants to contribute for different motivations. Currently, it doesn't
represent the reputation of some individuals, even if the initial work
was done by Thomas and Colin only. Gnuplot contributors are known as
"gnuplot contributors", not really as individuals. There's no need to
write somewhere explicitely who are the developpers. They are
self-defined. That's why I would like to see gnuplot under a license
that doesn't name explicitely who is authorized to release.

I'm not a desperate fan of the gpl, but I think that this license
handles these problems (maintainship by a self-defined community) in a
good way, by preserving to a good extent the spirit of the original
gnuplot license (preserving from usurpation, keeping the modified and
published code as open as the original).
Release of modified code is allowed, is easy. Fortunately it is not
allowed without any restriction. Here are those restrictions (quote from
the gpl) :
        "a)  You must cause the modified files to carry prominent
notices stating that you changed the files and the date of any change.

        b) You must cause any work that you distribute or publish, that
in whole or in part contains or is derived from the Program or any part
thereof, to be licensed as a whole at no charge to all third parties
under the terms of this License.

        c) If the modified program normally reads commands interactively
when run, you must cause it, when started running for such interactive
use in the most ordinary way, to print or display an announcement
including an appropriate copyright notice and a notice [about no
warranty (as it is free software which can be modified), etc.... cut
here ... ]"

It assures that the modification remain under the same license, so that
the "copyright holder" has not made of choice for nothing. The modified
code has to be clearly identified ("prominent notices") : that should
prevent anybody for corrupting gnuplot, so that consciencious
contributors' reputation is safe.



Do you think these arguments can persuade Thomas and other copyright
holders ?


Timoth=E9e