--- Joris van der Hoeven <Joris.VanDerHoeven@math.u-psud.fr> wrote:
> OK, you are talking about
>
> http://maxima.sourceforge.net/misc/maxima-doe-auth.png
Yes.
> > That's all we've got on this, and we are bound by that letter.
>
> Yes, and the paragraphs "Distribution ..." and "We have ..."
> don't look nice in relation to the GPL.
I don't think it's even relevant - it addresses issues which are above
the scope of the GPL.
> > The only relevant thing I can find is this part of the Open Source
> > Definition:
> >
> > "5. No Discrimination Against Persons or Groups
> > The license must not discriminate against any person or group of
> > persons.
>
> We are *not* talking about the "Open Source Definition" here,
> but about the "GNU General Public License". From a juridical
> point of view, additional restrictions on your license should
> be compatible with the GNU GPL.
That's just it - compatibility with the GPL is a non issue, because US
Law would restrict Maxima being exported whether or not we said
anything in the distribution itself, and regardless of the terms we
use. Even if we relased public domain, in theory it couldn't be
exported.
> What you can do though, is release Maxima under another,
> BSD-like license. The authorization letter seems to have
> a broad scope and DOE does not seem to care what precise
> license you take, as long as the export restriction is included.
No, Bill had the broad scope. We do not. We would have to make
contact and establish a new relationship with them.
> However, if you decide to change the license, don't forget that you
> will no longer be able to include GPL-licensed pieces of software in
> Maxima.
That's why we want to stay GPL.
> No, I think that the DOE letter states that the restrictions
> should be mentioned in the license itself:
>
> "... the previous paragraph should be included in the GPL and ..."
But that paragraph is not a condition of the license, it simply informs
the user as to a state of law that exists beyond our control. It's not
a restriction we or the GPL place on the software with the license.
> Once again, I think that the Distributor has to meet two
> restrictions:
> the GPL restrictions and the DOE restriction that the GPL license
> should include the addional export restriction (which does not seem
> to be compatible with the GPL).
The Distributor has to meet those restrictions from the DOE as a
consequence of US Law, not as a consequence of anything we have any
control over.
What is bothering you here - are you saying we can't distribute GPL
because of U.S. Law restrictions, or because they ask us to include the
notice those restrictions exist with the distribution? If the former
is true, then depending on what those laws actually say there is a very
real chance that NO software of this type written in Amercia could be
distributed under GPL, which would impact projects far beyond Maxima,
and maybe even beyond Mathematics.
> I think that there are several things you may do:
>
> * Contact the GNU folks and their legal experts.
> Drawback: if they decide that the restriction is incompatible
> with the GPL, then they will ask you to quickly change
> the license or get things straight.
Which we don't have the power to do. We can try to straighten things
out, but the distinct possibility of vast consequences for all GPL CASs
is not to be taken lightly.
> * Bother the DOE and ask them what they propose to
> make their restrictions compatible with the GPL.
> Drawback: they may become irritated and not allow to
> do you anything anymore afterwards.
In which case two years of very good and hard work by many individuals
is down the drain.
> * Change the license to a BSD-like license which includes
> the export restriction and ask DOE to confirm that
> they don't object to that. Drawback: you need the permission
> of *all* contributors to the free version of Maxima and
> you need to be sure that this is really what you want.
Not to mention we then have forbidden ourselves from using GPL
software, which includes a lot of serious scientific work that would
someday be good to include.
Joris, I'm curious what consequences you forsee if we just keep going
without banging our head against this - at worst, wouldn't we be told
to change the license and have to go through exactly what you are
proposing we leap into? Are you saying dive face first into it now to
avoid the possiblity of running into it later?
In any case, I am not the final authority on whether to take steps or
not on this. Jim has the final say and as leader of the project is the
logical guy to contact DOE - I have just tried to explain the situation
to the best of my ability. Please clarify this point through: are you
saying the GPL doesn't work because of the DOE having us include the
notice about US Law that relates to Maxima, or because of the law
itself? They are two different issues, and the second one is FAR more
serious - potentially a nuclear bomb on the scientific free software
world, in the worst case scenario.
I agree it would be nice to know the GNU folks position on this, but if
they raise cain then we are in for a world of trouble.
CY
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
The New Yahoo! Search - Faster. Easier. Bingo.
http://search.yahoo.com