Reconsidering the GPL licensing of Maxima

> I only contributed small pieces to maxima, mainly to mactex.lisp.
> I did it because this code is guaratneed to remain free forever
> by GPL. I don't want MathSoft or whatever to use results of my
> work without paying me. It you are going to change the license,
> please, insert back all the bugs in mactex.lisp which I have fixed.

A very good point and a sentiment I share. Or, to put it this way: I
wouldn't lose sleep over it if MathSoft decided to use my contributions in a
commercial product, but when I made my contributions to Maxima, it was under
the understanding that the GPL will guarantee that the code will remain
open.

As a matter of fact, I really don't see MathSoft's problem here. Keep the
Maxima and MathCAD engines separate. Include Maxima along with GPL'd source.
Even the mighty Microsoft managed to find this solution acceptable when they
included GPL'd (and not just LGPL'd) software with their Services for Unix
distribution. It's a bit of a pain in the butt, but at least it's
programmers, not lawyers, who get paid to fix the problem :-)

Regarding MathCAD, a while back I decided not to upgrade my license because
they also chose to incorporate an "activation"-style license management
mechanism (http://support.mathsoft.com/FAQ/) into their product. (In other
words, what you get is a "conditional" license that may or may not work at
the manufacturer's discretion: if you install it on a new machine, if you
install it on a backup machine, etc., and the manufacturer doesn't like what
you're doing, you are out of luck, even if what you do is perfectly legal
under copyright law.) I really don't feel that we need to go out of our way
to help a manufacturer that has such little respect towards its customers,
it finds it necessary to police them with that small piece of Orwellian
technology. I also find arguments emphasising "academic freedom" somewhat
disingenuous in view of that licensing mechanism: If they were really
concerned about academic freedom, they'd be laying open their own code under
the GPL, instead of adding components to their code designed to prevent its
execution.

Or, at the very least, they'd do as many other companies do and find a
meaningful way to work with open source: make their own contributions (I'm
sure the Maxima community wouldn't mind help from MathSoft's programmers)
while benefiting from the result.

Last but not least, I find the suggestion that Bill Schelter didn't know
what he was doing when he put Maxima under GPL somewhat disrespectful. Not
meaning to compare my work to the enormous job Bill has done, but just in
case I depart from the land of the living earlier than planned, I'd like to
state unambiguously that whatever code I release under the GPL is released
that way because I know exactly what the GPL is :-)

I hope this doesn't come across like I am some open source zealot who
doesn't see the big picture, so I hasten to add that I'll go along with
whatever is decided here, I just wanted to express my discomfort with the
proposal to reconsider Maxima's licensing.


Viktor