[We're becoming OT for -devel, please send replies discussing the legality, GPL compatibility, and/or DFSG free/non-freeness of this license to -legal. MFT set appropriately.]
On Thu, 20 Jan 2005, William Ballard wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 20, 2005 at 11:24:29PM +0100, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > Avoid gnuplot if you can, the license is GPL-incompatible and not one we
> > should encourage (See bug #100612 for why).
>
> The bug was closed. It says the license problems were fixed.
> In other words: Huh?
The specific problems with including non-DFSG free code (the examples
and specfun.c) were solved.
Unfortunatly, the license itself still not ideal. It's arguably DFSG
Free, but not something I would recommend using for a work that
purports to be Free Software:
Permission to distribute binaries produced by compiling modified sources is
granted,
provided you
1. distribute the corresponding source modifications from the
released version in the form of a patch file along with the binaries,
2. add special version identification to distinguish your version
in addition to the base release version number,
3. provide your name and address as the primary contact for the
support of your modified version, and
4. retain our contact information in regard to use of the base
software.
2, 3, and 4 are likely GPL incompatible.
Don Armstrong
--
Dropping non-free would set us back at least, what, 300 packages? It'd take
MONTHS to make up the difference, and meanwhile Debian users will be fleeing
to SLACKWARE.
And what about SHAREHOLDER VALUE?
-- Matt Zimmerman in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
http://www.donarmstrong.com http://rzlab.ucr.edu
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
