Proper license note for Maxima and Maxima-derived works

Ok, thanks to all who answered for the hints. I will just put a note in the
header and leave the original message, and I will include the modified code
snippet in the next release of my program (SymSAP).


2012/12/6 Jaime Villate <villate at fe.up.pt>

> Only in the cases when the authors state explicitly that you MUST use
only version 2 of the GPL
> you have to use that same version number. The default GPL 2 is already
compatible with GPL 3 or later versions.

Well, Maxima doesn't explicitly specify that it released under the GPL 2
only, there is only a GPL v2 attached with no other specifications... But
in the case it was GPL2 only I would have to face the incompatibility
between version 3 and 2 (only the opposite sense, 2 > 3, is compatible).

A last question, just a curiosity, if someone can clarify this doubt.
Maxima must follow some exportation rules, as noted also by Richard
Fateman, in particular there is a list of countries for whom some stuff
produced or derived by U.S. works cannot be available. I really don't want
to cope with such questions, and it is not really clear to me how exactly
this restrictions apply, and if they still apply as when Maxima was first
released under the GPL. But, if I include some code which has such
restrictions, I think that also my program will have them, right?

Thanks and please excuse me for these legal questions...
Stefano



2012/12/6 Robert Dodier <robert.dodier at gmail.com>

> On 2012-12-06, Stefano Ferri <ferriste at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > since I have modified the file merror.lisp and I need to redistribute a
> > small part of it it along with my program, which is released under the
> > terms of the GNU GPL v3 or later, I would like to know which is the
> correct
> > way to redistribute it. It is a very little modification, but doing
> things
> > in the right way is necessary.
>
> I agree that you should try to do the right thing, but my advice is,
> don't lose sleep over it.
>
> (1) Bill Schelter (requiescat in pace) got permission from US Dept of
> Energy, the nominal owners of DOE-Macsyma, to release his version under
> terms of the GNU GPL. Nobody now involved in the project has any
> authority to revise those terms for the stuff that was in DOE-Macsyma at
> that time, which, I believe, includes merror.lisp. No particular version
> of the GPL was mentioned in the DOE authorization letter. The GPL itself
> states that no particular version is the same as version 2.
>
> (2) Nobody knows exactly what the GPL allows and doesn't allow. Not even
> the FSF (Stallman's organization) -- they make various claims but only
> court rulings on copyright law (specifically, what counts as a
> derivative work) can really clarify things.
>
> (3) A license violation is a matter for civil, not criminal, law. So
> only an injured party could bring a lawsuit against you. Questions for
> you to consider: Who would be injured by your failure to license
> merror.lisp properly? If you make an effort in good faith to adhere to
> the GPL, would they really care?
>
> Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer.
>
> Hope this helps,
>
> Robert Dodier
>
> _______________________________________________
> Maxima mailing list
> Maxima at math.utexas.edu
> http://www.math.utexas.edu/mailman/listinfo/maxima
>