A Maxima function for solving initial value problems with adaptive step size and error control.

I think we're mostly in agreement. I have some minor comments.
At this time, I don't have any recommendations to change what
we're doing. Disclaimer: I am not lawyer.

On 10/25/11, Stavros Macrakis <macrakis at alum.mit.edu> wrote:

> In any case, there is absolutely no requirement that new share packages
> which are not derived from existing code follow GPL.

Agreed.

> In fact, legally they probably don't even need to be "free software"
> as long as they are simply distributed along with Maxima,
> and not incorporated into distributed binaries.

I don't mean to go into a long discussion about this (since we are not
actually distributing such packages) but the question of whether or not
the license of the Maxima binary (GPL) pertains to the distribution of
Maxima + associated packages is quite murky: there are no clear
principles, no decided cases to refer to, and I've yet to come across
any qualified commentator who is willing to make a statement more
definite than "I don't know, you should hire a lawyer to figure it out."

Note that the situation of Maxima + packages is very similar
to Python + packages. Given that Python is more widely used, there
has been more discussion about licenses for Python packages;
that could be a source of inspiration and/or confusion for Maxima.
(Same goes for other interpreted languages.)

> As the maintainers of Maxima, we can certainly decide that we
> will only publish in share code which has a free or open-source license; we
> can even decide that we require a license which is compatible with GPL.  But
> this includes not just LGPL, but also many others.

Well, as long as we're using Sourceforge as a hosting service,
we are obligated to release stuff under a license which conforms to
their definition of free software. So given that, it's not entirely our choice.
But even so, there are several licenses to choose from.

> Code can also be multi-licensed under both GPL *and* other licenses
> which can be incompatible with GPL.

Agreed, but I would recommend against it ... the situation is confusing
enough as it is.

> Whether the code is compiled or not is irrelevant.

Agreed, but (and again here is a point which is probably undecidable,
but luckily not in need of decision) the manner in which the compiled
code is distributed might be relevant. If all compiled bits are bound
into one image, the license for distribution of that image would be
(I suppose) somewhere in the intersection of each bit's license.
But otherwise, perhaps the collection could be considered a "mere
aggregation".

> Robert likes GPL and considers it the "standard license" for share files,
> but Robert does not decide for the developer community.

Agreed. Let me add, though, that I don't have any absolute devotion
to GPL; it just seems like the most comprehensible thing to do in this
situation.

> In particular, I would object to requiring share code to be licensed under GPL.

OK by me. We just have to conform to the Sourceforge requirement
for free software licenses.

best

Robert Dodier