Reconsidering the GPL licensing of Maxima


Wolfgang Jenkner wrote:

>Richard Fateman  writes:
>
>  
>
>>Actually, I don't see GPL to be consistent with Bill's intentions, and
>>believe the insertion of GPL in later versions (post-DOE-letter) to be his
>>mistaken view that he was respecting the DOE perspective (see COPYING
>>and COPYING1).  Really the DOE perspective was: do whatever you want,
>>including commercialization.  Bill was not a lawyer.
>>    
>>
>
>There can be no doubt that Schelter knew perfectly well the
>differences between GPL and, say, LGPL.  Please read
>
>ftp://ftp.ma.utexas.edu/pub/gcl/GCL.README
>
I just read through it.  Indeed  I agree that
Bill was aware of  LGPL, at least when he wrote that.  But does it make 
sense
that he would have his fixes and additions to GCL or AKCL be licensed 
under LGPL, but
his fixes and additions to Maxima licensed more restrictively under GPL??

Bill was not a lawyer, of course, but the file also says...

DISCLAIMER:
----------

W. Schelter, the University of Texas, and other parties provide this
program on an "as is" basis without warranty of any kind, either
expressed or implied, including, but not limited to, the implied
warranties of merchantability and fitness for a particular purpose.


Whether this was left over from something else or not, I can't
say for sure, but doesn't the GPL cover this issue? 
So maybe Bill wasn't really thinking about LGPL protecting him
or his code, but thinking about it affecting the rights of the
other (KCL) authors.  And for himself, I think it would have
been consistent with my interactions with him, that he chose to
have his OWN code covered by this disclaimer.  Namely
"use it if you want to, but don't sue me."  

There is this significant note from Tim Daly that bears on
this issue as well:

http://www.math.utexas.edu/pipermail/maxima/2003/005223.html




>
>On the other hand, on reading the letter from DOE,
>
>http://maxima.sourceforge.net/misc.shtml
>
>I doubt that its author understood the idea behind the GPL.
>

That is certainly my reading as well.  But the DOE gave a NON-EXCLUSIVE
license, so anyone else could release it under a more liberal or strict 
policy.

RJF

>
>Wolfgang
>  
>