Re: Thoughts about gnuplot license and copyrights

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

Timoth=E9e Lecomte wrote:

> 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.
>=20
> To remain pragmatic, I think that we can't reach the same conditions fo=
r
> gnuplot.

Why not?  I know the common belief now days is that only "big" entities h=
ave or can afford rights, representation, etc.  But the law isn't restric=
ted to them.  In fact, a lot of these legal concepts probably were origin=
ally intended to protect the individual.

> As Hans-Bernhard Broeker also explained, a trademark would be needed to
> protect the name 'gnuplot'. To remain pragmatic, nobody will provide th=
e
> money to have a 'gnuplot' trademark.

I'm not assuming that.  International trademark looks to be $500 (it's in=
 swiss currency) for ten years.  Not unreasonable.  But that's an aside. =
 (Might make it easy though to recover www.gnuplot.com from that person w=
ho gobbled it up.)

Let's put it this way.  You mentioned having a little assurance that work=
 doesn't get wasted.  Well, take the work of the number of people who hav=
e contributed and add up their time as though it were charged an hourly r=
ate.  Wow, that would be one damn big monetary gift; intended, I think, f=
or science.  It wouldn't kill me to contribute monetarily to solidifying =
a license so long as it's reasonable.

> And if we define a "maintainers group", it would still be a list of
> named individuals who can disappear one day.

Hence, why I propose that if a member of the group goes silent for a year=
, someone else is allowed to take over.  If it gets to the point where th=
ere isn't a dozen or so people who could be a pool for just a few maintai=
ners then nobody cares anymore.  Or do a D. Knuth thing and freeze it for=
 good.

> The solution would be a
> sort of foundation, but I can't imagine such a complex legal entity for
> just gnuplot.

Not complex.  Keep it simple.  Nobody is attempting to collect royalties.

>=20
> 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.

That's one alternative I'm saying leave on the table.

I guess my feeling is that gnuplot has had some license now for a long ti=
me.  If out of the blue it changes to a different license it would be goo=
d, I think, to have it made clear that T.W. has signed off on that.  Cert=
ainly an email from T.W. wouldn't hold much water.  (Someone could claim =
the email was made up by someone else.)  Something he can sign (notarized=
) that can be put in a safe deposit box would be nice.  To change the lic=
ense without there being a clear understanding of that intention would ju=
st add more confusion.

Dan