[Fwd: Re: [Maxima] Reconsidering the GPL licensing of Maxima]

oops, forgot to cc maxima  on this..

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: [Maxima] Reconsidering the GPL licensing of Maxima
Date: Wed, 07 Sep 2005 08:28:56 -0700
From: Richard Fateman 
Organization: University of California, Berkeley
To: Robert Dodier 

Robert Dodier wrote:

> richard,
> 
> in reference to bill schelter's license notices,
> 
> 
>>Can one give away code and then later impose a restriction on it?
> 
> 
> i am almost certain that the answer is yes.

(RJF)
I don't see how the owner of a program can place it
in the public domain, and then later "take it back".
Do you disagree?

Though what Bill did what to place a copyright on the files
and then give it away (post it, free for anyone). Then later
he added the GPL copying rules.


 > to the extent
> that he had the right to release the software, he was free
> to release it under as many different licenses as he wished.

I agree,  But could a subsequent release "under GPL" affect
an earlier release in the public domain?  There could always
be two (non-exclusive) licenses, and the GPL version of
DOE-Macsyma is one of (any number of) possible releases.
> 
> the maxima 5.6 license is the one that matters to us, not 
> because it is the most recent, but because version 5.6 is
> the basis for the current work.

I wonder how much difference there really is between versions.

 > someone else is free to
> start another project based on, say, 5.2, and they would
> be bound by the terms under which 5.2 was released.

These terms are unclear.  The code was just left on a website
at UT...  Still is there... My guess is it is "copyright"WFS...
and so maybe his heirs have some rights, if that copyright is
valid.  [May not be relevant if the version in DOE also says
copyright WFS...]

Regards
RJF


> 
> for what it's worth,
> robert dodier