Reconsidering the GPL licensing of Maxima

Viktor T. Toth wrote:

>>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 :-)

I believe there is an exception to GPL that allows for non-GPL operating systems
(or interpreters) to run GPL programs. It doesn't extend to programs linked together..


To quote from the FSF FAQ...

"If the modules are included in the same executable file, they are definitely combined in one 
program. If modules are designed to run linked together in a shared address space, that almost 
surely means combining them into one program.

By contrast, pipes, sockets and command-line arguments are communication mechanisms normally used 
between two separate programs. So when they are used for communication, the modules normally are 
separate programs. But if the semantics of the communication are intimate enough, exchanging complex 
internal data structures, that too could be a basis to consider the two parts as combined into a 
larger program. "


> 
> Regarding MathCAD, ...

.. 

> 
> 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.

That's what they are saying.

> 
> 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 :-)

Maybe we should all make such notes in our wills?  :)

> 
> 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.

I think LLGPL would work well.  Thanks.

RJF

> 
> 
> Viktor
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Maxima mailing list
> Maxima@math.utexas.edu
> http://www.math.utexas.edu/mailman/listinfo/maxima