Reconsidering the GPL licensing of Maxima

Richard Fateman  writes:

> The Maxima source currently on sourceforge
> is "under GPL" because it says so in the file that was
> added in October, 1998 or so.

Much of it was added later, and so is under the GPL because it was
originally written that way.  Which isn't to say that the license
can't be changed.

> To say that such a file is under GPL is a rather
> esoteric concept. 

Quite the opposite, I would think.

> Unless we have developed a new technology of invisible watermarks,
> there is no way to truly tell where an ascii file came from. So if I
> tell you that you do not have permission to distribute, say
> src/solve.lisp except under GPL, because it appears in sourceforge,
> I would be wrong. You can distribute it, if you can show there is a
> way you got that same file from the DOE.

I'm not sure what you're arguing here; I've never heard anyone argue
that a file you got from a non-GPLed source is GPLed because there is
a GPL copy somewhere.

Jay