Re: pdf library for gnuplot

[Hans-Bernhard B. <br...@ph...>]

On Wed, 21 Apr 2004, Daniel J Sebald wrote:

> Hans-Bernhard Broeker wrote:

> >As I (and some rather more important other people) read the GPL: I don't
> >think so.  Not unless we can present legally solid analysis that proves
> >our license compatible with the GPL.  I don't think it is, because of
> >this clause in our license:
> >
> > * Permission to modify the software is granted, but not the right to
> > * distribute the complete modified source code.  Modifications are to
> > * be distributed as patches to the released version.
> >
> 
> You are identifying, then, the difference between the Gnuplot license 
> and an existing license.  This is one of the items that the Open Source 
> Initiative is asking for  so that they can discuss things.
> 
> However, are you thinking that this particular sentence is a significant 
> enough variation that it would cause the OSI to not allow it?  

For the issue at hand, the opinion, actually even the very existence, of
the OSI is a complete non-issue.  We're talking about GPL compatibility
here, for which the only relevant documents are our own license and the
text of the GPL.

> I guess in principle this is saying that someone can't create their own
> "developer" version of the software, that is bifurcate so there are two
> versions floating about.

Among other things.  It also means Linux distributors can't just
distribute patched source tarballs.  Most don't do that anyway, but our
statement says they're not *allowed* to.  And that is at odds with the
GPL.

-- 
Hans-Bernhard Broeker (br...@ph...)
Even if all the snow were burnt, ashes would remain.