Subject: Reconsidering the GPL licensing of Maxima
From: Jay Belanger
Date: Mon, 05 Sep 2005 20:42:35 -0500
Richard Fateman writes:
...
> Another is to observe his other code, posted similarly, which he wrote
> himself and did not try to "negotiate terms" with DOE. For example,
> NetMath.
Which, as you point out, is allowed to be distributed, but not
changed. If his changes to Maxima were licensed similary, then this
project would have to go back to the DOE source, and all of Bill
Schelter's code would be wasted.
> In particular, while he asked DOE for permission to release
> THEIR code (actually MIT's, his, mine, ...)
It would depend on whether "owning" code means writing it or
controlling it.
> In particular, while he asked DOE for permission to release
> THEIR code (actually MIT's, his, mine, ...) under GPL, he
> didn't say that his additional code was also restricted by GPL.
It seems to me that he did.
The only indication of copyright in the old sources is the GPL, and
the included spec file indicates it's GPLed.
Since the GPL provides much fewer restrictions than some of the other
stuff he wrote himself, I don't see why this point would be argued.
The possibilities offered here seem to be either continue with the GPL
or remove all of Bill Schelter's post-DOE work (and perhaps much of
what depends on it). Finally, it seems silly to think that he worked
to get the DOE source GPLed, but didn't add his later contributions.
Jay