C Y wrote:
>
> --- 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...
>
> 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. Richard's code certainly
> isn't, as he made clear. The thing is, there must be
> some basis for the response Bill got when he talked to
> the government folks.
Ijust looked at the letter. It doesn't reflect the
history...... back in 1968-1980
MIT was funded by DOE and others. DOE had a library facility
called NESC (National Energy Software Center) that distributed
code produced under DOE sponsorship. MIT did not want the
code distributed at all. Under pressure from me, and later
Bill, they relented. The principal reason for the code to
be broken free, informally distributed by wfs was, I think, that
NESC lost its funding, and if it had any interest in enforcement,
it was unfunded.
> Was the original funding that
> allowed the creation of Macsyma under DOE control, and
> thus any code funded by that money was subject to
> those restrictions?
>
> Here's the relevant part:
>
> "Distribution of this derivative work is subject to
> the US Export Administration Regulations (Title 15 CFR
> 768-799), which implements the Export Administration
> Act of 1979, as amendeded, and/or the International
> Traffic in Arms Regulations, of 12-6-84, (Title 22 CFR
> 121-130), which implements the Arms Export Control Act
> (22 USC 2728)and may require license for export."
If you think Macsyma is an armament, I guess you
might need a license. ETSC is not saying you need a
license, just that you might. Note that WFS was
given permission world-wide...
>
> 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?
Typically MIT may claim copyright; certain rights were
sold to Macsyma Inc.
Some pieces are marked as copyright UC Berkeley, I think.
And I think Bill Schelter copyrighted all the changes
he made. Probably most of the people who wrote code
do not have any apparent claim. Many of them are
entirely unmentioned, though some are castigated in
the comments ...e.g. ;; I can't believe XXX did it this way...
etc.
>
> Maybe it would be a good idea to try to clarify this
> issue with the ESTSC? The letter Bill got from them
> is here:
> http://www.ma.utexas.edu/users/wfs/maxima-doe-auth.gif
>
I really doubt that.
Ask a lawyer if it is ok to do something, and the
lawyer will likely look for the way to cover his/her ass.
In this case, it would be "don't allow anyone to do anything".
> __________________________________________________
> Terrorist Attacks on U.S. - How can you help?
> Donate cash, emergency relief information
> http://dailynews.yahoo.com/fc/US/Emergency_Information/
> _______________________________________________
> Maxima mailing list
> Maxima@www.math.utexas.edu
> http://www.math.utexas.edu/mailman/listinfo/maxima