[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: gnuplot
From: |
Javier Fernandez |
Subject: |
Re: gnuplot |
Date: |
Wed, 11 Feb 2015 19:40:43 +0000 (UTC) |
User-agent: |
tin/2.0.1-20111224 ("Achenvoir") (UNIX) (NetBSD/6.1.5 (amd64)) |
Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org> wrote:
> But you _can_ distribute the source modifications as patches to
> released sources, so what's the difference?
The problems are explained in this ubuntu bug mailing list post
https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/gnuplot/+bug/195111/comments/9
Henrik Nilsen Omma (henrik) wrote on 2008-11-17:
> You could fork it in theory but it would have to be forever
> distributed as a combination of the original source at the
> version you forked and an ever-growing set of patches.
> It does allow you to make changes and distribute them but in an
> awkward form.
> it IS GPL-incompatible (e.g. it may not be distributed in binary
> form with the GNU readline library linked to it), because of that
> additional restriction.
> That said, debian-legal do consider this to be DFSG-free but
> consider it to be a compromise. From the linked Debian bug:
- Re: gnuplot (was: Re: zsh outside of Emacs), Emanuel Berg, 2015/02/10
- Re: gnuplot, Marcin Borkowski, 2015/02/12
- Re: gnuplot, Stefan Monnier, 2015/02/12
- Re: gnuplot, Marcin Borkowski, 2015/02/12
- Re: gnuplot, Marcin Borkowski, 2015/02/12
- Re: gnuplot, Stefan Monnier, 2015/02/12
- Message not available
- Re: gnuplot, Emanuel Berg, 2015/02/12