C Y <smustudent1@yahoo.com> writes:
> --- Tuukka Toivonen <tuukkat@ees2.oulu.fi> wrote:
>
> > What comes to the DOE export restrictions, to me it
> > looks quite
> > much like it is GPL incompatible. That is, Maxima
> > really isn't GPL'ed
> > after all, althought quite close--but unfortunately
> > GPL incompatible,
> > so you can't incorporate GPL code into Maxima
> > codebase, if you want
> > to go strictly legal way. To me it doesn't matter
> > tough...
Maxima is GPLed. Unfortunately I don't recall where I read it, but I
seem to recall reading a discussion of this topic, the conclusion was
that licensing is independent of export regulations.
> Unfortunately, especially in light of the WTC, they
> are likely to be much tougher about this one on the
> hill now. Also, if we want to use any other code
> rather than writing it all ourselves, it may be a
> significant issue. If we don't, then it doesn't
> matter particularly - we just have to stop saying the
> software is under GPL.
At least for William Schelter's modifications, we can't do that.
I don't think we want to get rid of his modifications, there is no
need to fork Maxima.
> Richard's code certainly isn't, as he made clear.
He said he didn't put it under GPL, but he indicated that he wanted
people to do with it as they will. He may want to clarify that, but
William Schelter certainly thought that Richard Fateman gave him
permission to include some of his (Richard's) code in the GPLed Maxima
(which of course doesn't mean that Richard's code was GPLed at all).
Look at the top of mactex.lisp in the src directory.
> Also, who does actually hold the copyright on the
> source code? Based on my admittedly limited knowledge
> of it's history, wheren't there a large number of
> contributors over a long period of time?
Since the DOE gave permission to William Schelter to relicense it,
they must have held the copyright. The original authors don't always
have the copyright.
Jay