Re: Thoughts about gnuplot license and copyrights

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

Daniel J Sebald wrote:

> Timoth=E9e Lecomte wrote:
>
>> 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 n=
ew
>> version. Currently, as the license does ask for too much restriction o=
n
>> released modified code (the patched way), the 'absolute' maintainer is
>> Thomas by default, as nobody is allowed to release a new version witho=
ut
>> his agreement. This is the problem.
>
>
> I think we're on the same page, Timoth=E9e, i.e., envisioning some
> loose-knit group of individuals with some authority (for what it's
> worth) to maintain the code and a convenient way to keep that going.=20
> I like the way you've described it.  But it is always good, I think,
> to be a bit more legally conscientious (especially if the license
> deviates slightly from an accepted and understood license), just so
> the intentions are understood down the road--sort of an impartial
> check.  There's been some good discussion here, but come five years
> from now it's part of the digital ether.
>
> Dan

I understand your point about defining legally this group. As Ethan
explained, it's what the pine license does, and in this case the group
which authorizes releases is the University of Washington. You can note
that there are major differences between pine and gnuplot : 'pine' is a
trademark (as 'firefox' is for an other example), and there is a
powerful and long-standing legal entity behind pine, the university.

To remain pragmatic, I think that we can't reach the same conditions for
gnuplot.
As Hans-Bernhard Broeker also explained, a trademark would be needed to
protect the name 'gnuplot'. To remain pragmatic, nobody will provide the
money to have a 'gnuplot' trademark.
And if we define a "maintainers group", it would still be a list of
named individuals who can disappear one day. The solution would be a
sort of foundation, but I can't imagine such a complex legal entity for
just gnuplot.

That's why I just propose to use a slightly more permissive license
about release conditions. Thus we preserve simplicity : no need to
legally define a maintainer group if the license does not mention it.

Timoth=E9e