Re: Thoughts about gnuplot license and copyrights

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

Daniel J Sebald wrote:

> Useful list below, thanks.  Short comments within:
> Timoth=E9e Lecomte wrote:
>
>> I have wondered how things go for other projects. Indeed, instead of
>> trying to resolve the gnuplot's license disadvantage ourselves, we can
>> get the inspiration from others (that's not copyrighted !). So I have
>> made a compilation of information on famous scientific open-source
>> software. Let's see :
>>
>>
>> * octave ( numerical computations): GPL, "octave" doesn't seem to be a
>> trademark, octave is a GNU product, so it is proctected by the Free
>> Software Foundation, which takes good care of copyrights (see
>> http://www.gnu.org/prep/maintain/maintain.html  :  the FSF asks for a
>> plain paper from each important contributor that gives his copyright t=
o
>> the FSF, as for each GNU software)
>
>
> We could probably talk to John Eaton about more specifics if we
> wanted.  By plain paper you mean something with signatures?  (And
> notarized, I'd argue.)

With signatures, yes. Here is the relevant part of the link above :

    "If you maintain an FSF-copyrighted package certain legal procedures
are required when incorporating legally significant changes written by
other people.     This ensures that the FSF has the legal right to
distribute the package, and the standing to defend its GPL-covered
status in court if necessary.

    Before incorporating significant changes, make sure that the person
who wrote the changes has signed copyright papers and that the Free
Software  Foundation has received and signed them. We may also need a
disclaimer from the person's employer."

>> * Maxima (computer algebra system) : GPL, no trademark ("maxima" is
>> already the trademark of a fishing lines company),
>
>
> Doesn't have any bearing on a software license as fishing equipment is
> unrelated to software.


>> * Axiom (computer algebra system ) : BSD-style, no trademark ("axiom" =
is
>> already the trademark of an automotive company),
>
>
> Again, there can be multiple trademarks if the two companies are in
> unrelated fields.
>
> [snip]
>
>> * amarok ( music player ): GPL, no trademark, copyright is protected b=
y
>> the KDEev as it is part of KDE
>
>
> Also the name of a Mike Oldfield album.  :-)


Ok, I didn't know that there can be multiple trademarks for different
activities.

>
>> no organization behind.
>> Maxima comes from DOE-Macsyma, written by the department of Energy (as
>> far as I understand) and was officially donated to the community under
>> the GPL.
>
> Not according to the letter.  It apparently isn't GPL but says if the
> derivative work is GPL then Maxima's license must also accompany the
> GPL license.

Indeed the letter doesn't say it has to be released under the GPL. I
would say that it enumerates a list of conditions and says that Willam
Shelter has the right to sublicense the modified code he wants to
distribute. Derivated work stands here for the work done from the
original copy that has been donated to him. He probably chose the gpl
because it was compatible with the requirements of this letter.

>
>> Here is the letter which proves it :
>> http://maxima.sourceforge.net/misc/maxima-doe-auth.png
>
>
> Paperwork?

Yes, paperwork...

>> * Pari/GP (computer algebra system) : GPL, no trademark, no foundation
>> Was formally a proprietary project, and switched to the gpl. Here is a
>> related entry in the FAQ :
>>     "Why use such a "restrictive" license as the GPL? Will you change
>> it?
>>
>>     The short answer to the second question is no.
>>     We are quite happy with the GPL. The original license (up to versi=
on
>> 2.0) was proprietary, too casually worded, and lead to various
>> conflicts. Starting from version 2.0, we wanted a well known license f=
or
>> the whole PARI/GP package, that would leave contributors secure with t=
he
>> future use of their code and, as far as possible, not prevent anyone
>> from helping out. It was soon agreed that PARI/GP should become free
>> software.
>>     The GPL was a natural choice. It is certainly well-known, and it
>> satisfied every developer involved in the project, as well as their
>> respective employers. For the latter, the alternatives would have been
>> more restrictive, certainly not closer to the LGPL, BSD, or the Artist=
ic
>> license. Most free Computer Algebra Systems also use the GPL, presumab=
ly
>> for related reasons."
>
>
> This Henri Cohen seems to be still active in development or directly
> oversees it, probably made the license transition that much easier.

Agreed.

>> That's already a long list, although I must be forgetting important
>> ones. The important points are :
>> - some have a trademark, even individuals have (FFmpeg)
>> - some don't have, and don't seem to suffer too much (Octave, Maxima,
>> etc.)
>
>
> Trademark is for protecting the name, probably more for a business.=20
> But if some strange court case arises down the road where someone like
> Octave, Maxima, etc. loses the right to use the name, there'll be a
> mad scramble at the trademark office.

Agreed too.

>> - Interestingly enough, some projects come from proprietary products a=
nd
>> became GPLed (Pari/GP - decision explained above, Maxima )
>
>
> Pari/GP hardly seems to have originally been proprietary.=20
> Universities are slightly different than companies because of the
> where the money comes from.  (Although, universities seem to be going
> more and more down that road as even the public schools become more
> and more private because state governments lessen and lessen support.)

It's the author who said that the original license was proprietary...
"The original license (up to version 2.0) was proprietary, too casually
worded, and lead to various conflicts."

>> We can be fine without a legal organization.
>
>
> My vision is not that far, but others might disagree.
>
>> We can also define an
>> organization that supervises the development, but taking complete
>> control on releases for example would makes gnuplot look like Scilab
>> which is still sometimes criticized for its almost closed development.
>
>
> I'm thinking more a loosely legal agreement about the authority of
> maintainers.  And it probably doesn't have so much to do with the
> license.  But enough authority for stamp of approval release (no
> warranty!), but not enough to move development outside the intended pat=
h.

So we would need to define cleanly how this group will work, but if it's
properly done and functional, it's ok !

>
>> What do you conclude ?
>
>
> First, thanks again for the thorough summary.  I need some time to thin=
k.
>
> Dan

You're welcome !

Timoth=E9e