>>>>> "CY" == C Y <smustudent1@yahoo.com> writes:
CY> Ummm - I think it depends on how you view code running in Maxima. I'm
CY> not a lawyer either, but here are my thoughts:
CY> My take would be that people can't do non-GPL work on the Maxima
CY> distribution and redistribute it, but if they want to use Maxima to run
CY> their own (non-GPL) packages and distribute those packages separately
CY> that's just fine. If they want their packages to become part of the
CY> Maxima distribution, that's another story, but if they distribute
CY> routines independent of Maxima I don't really see a problem - kind of
CY> like TheKompany, who distributes commercial addons to their core free
CY> products, or non-GPL plugins to the GIMP. If he wants to bundle Maxima
CY> with his stuff, THAT might be a problem. But if he distributes his
CY> stuff, doesn't use code which is actually part of the Maxima
CY> distribution and lets the users load and run it, I don't see how there
CY> can be a problem. GPL, IIRC, doesn't place ANY restrictions on use.
CY> So unless we take the position that any routines which can be run on
CY> Maxima are automatically derivative from Maxima code or become part of
CY> the code when run on it, it should be fine. I suppose an arguement
CY> might be made for the latter, but I'd be surprised. I don't think
CY> that's a stance we really want to take - we want to encourage use of
CY> Maxima, not discourage it.
I was thinking of the case of GNU GMP being used for some proprietary
crypto package. The claim made at the time was that since the package
could only be used with GMP, the whole package had to be released
under the GPL because, the argument went, it could only be used with
GMP. The issue was finally resolved by someone creating a separate MP
package that could be used and the argument no longer held.
But the GIMP is a precedence that allows it and if the FSF hasn't
tried to change it, I guess Maxima is safe.
Ray