Re: Thoughts about gnuplot license and copyrights

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

Dear gnuplot developpers,

I have been very impressed by the overall enthusiasm last month about=20
the future of gnuplot (42 messages !). The discussion has been=20
constructive. Some time went by, and I think it would be interesting to=20
sum up the points of view, and probably ask to Thomas Williams what *he*=20
thinks of this.

So the main issue is that the current license drives gnuplot to a=20
"single point of failure", because releases rely on the agreement of=20
copyright holders, who will be gone one day.

The proposed solutions are, from the easier to the most radical :

* don't do anything, and wait to see gnuplot die in the more-or-less=20
long run

* change the license by contacting all copyright holders.
What license ? A license just permissive enough to make releases allowed=20
without relying on a fragile individual :
    - a modified gnuplot license that names a legal body, a group of=20
people, like a foundation, which is allowed to make releases,
    or
    - gpl, because it is "standard", well-known, written by people aware=20
of the laws, or
    or
    - another appropriate license.

* transfer the copyrights to a legal body, existing or to be created,=20
immortal by design, which will be the group allowed to make releases,=20
but also to enforce the license if needed, and eventually to raise funds=20
or to register and enforce a trademark

All of the solutions that really handle gnuplot's future (all but the=20
first) are legally viable and imply a decision from the copyrights' holde=
rs.

Finally, one person has remained definitely silent for this discussion :=20
Thomas Williams. Lars, can you try to ask him for his position about the=20
license issue, as you proposed in one of your messages ?

Thank you very much for your consideration.

Best regards,

Timoth=E9e Lecomte