Re: Thoughts about gnuplot license and copyrights

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

Timoth=E9e Lecomte wrote:

>Daniel J Sebald wrote:
>
> =20
>
>>Timoth=E9e Lecomte wrote:
>>
>>   =20
>>
>>>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 not=
e
>>>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 f=
or
>>>gnuplot.
>>>     =20
>>>
>>Why not?  I know the common belief now days is that only "big"
>>entities have or can afford rights, representation, etc.  But the law
>>isn't restricted to them.  In fact, a lot of these legal concepts
>>probably were originally intended to protect the individual.
>>   =20
>>
>
>Ok, it is possible, but personnaly I don't want
> =20
>
Wow, I realize that I have forgotten to finish my sentence. I meant to
say that legal protections remain complicated to handle. But I agree
with you, it's feasible.