> First of all, the language in question is not part of the license. It
> is information about legal restrictions which may (or may not) apply to
> Maxima. The DOE did request that this language be distributed along
> with the license. Note that it is a strong request ("should"), not a
> requirement ("must"). The letter does ask that it "be included" in the
> GPL, but I believe this is simply loose wording on the part of the DOE.
Did I understand well that the DOE letter gives you the formal
authorization to distribute Maxima? In that case, they mention
certain restrictions. If these restrictions are just "loose wording",
then it might be time to figure out their precise meaning.
> Secondly, the language in question doesn't even impose any conditions.
> It simply states facts: "Distribution... is subject to ... regulations".
> Though you or I may not agree with some provision of U.S. or French or
> Maldivian law, it applies in the respective territories.
So what is the precise meaning of "... the previous paragraph *should*
be included in ..."? Is that a condition? Do you meet it?
> Fourth, you have asked that the FSF be consulted about this. The FSF
> has no legal standing in this matter. They are not the copyright
> holders or the licensors of Maxima. Of course, they have their opinion
> about what exactly the GPL does and doesn't allow, but it is not they
> who would enforce the Maxima license or the license of other software
> incorporated into Maxima (except if it is software copyrighted by the
> FSF).
So what is precisely wrong about consulting the FSF then?
At least they might clarify whether they *consider* the current
license to be a GPL license or a GPL license + additional restrictions.
> Fifth, you are "warning" us of "potential unpleasant surprises". I have
> stated why I am not concerned about litigation from M.I.T., the estate
> of William Schelter, and the U.S. government. So presumably the
> unpleasant surprises you have in mind are litigation by copyright
> holders of other software which is incorporated into Maxima, on the
> grounds that their license (GPL) is incompatible with that of Maxima.
> Now, first of all, I do not believe there is a legal issue here (see the
> first two points above). Secondly, no copyright holder has objected
> yet, and I think they would be silly to. Third, we do not incorporate
> software promiscuously; in fact, we are probably over-careful about it.
> Finally, if some copyright holder *does* object, we always have the
> possibility of yanking their code (of course this would be hard if it
> were woven into Maxima, but this is not happening and not likely to
> happen).
Well, if you are right that the current license is a pure GPL license,
which I still doubt (why include the COPYING1 file in that case?),
then there is indeed no legal issue. But if you are wrong,
then the "potential unpleasant surprises" might for instance
be a court decision which prohibits the distribution of Maxima.
> Sixth, much software attached to Maxima is attached at arms' length, and
> so not subject to the "contagion" restrictions of the GPL. Where
> exactly the line is between creating a derived work and simply
> functionally connecting two programs has not been determined legally as
> far as I know, but even if the FSF's legal position (which makes rather
> strong claims) is upheld in its entirety, programs connected by piping
> and the like are *not* subject to GPL contagion.
I agree; I think that the GPL is only clear about static linking.
The FSF might still hold a case for dynamic linking, but certainly
not for pipes. In particular, I consider it legal for Mupad,
Reduce, Axiom, etc. to distribute interfaces via pipes for TeXmacs.
> Finally, I think you are bringing the sensibilities of a good engineer
> to a legal issue. The law is not applied mechanically. It is applied
> by people to disputes between people. And one hopes reasonable people.
Yes, but hope is not enough.