Re: Question on gnuplot licensing and why it is in main

2005-03-03 Thread Roberto C. Sanchez
Henning Makholm wrote: No, because the quoted license explicitly allows the distribution of binaries built from modified sources. That kind of patch-clause licenses is specifically blessed by DFSG #4. OK. I think understand. qmail and pine are non-free because they disallow binary distribution,

Re: Question on gnuplot licensing and why it is in main

2005-03-03 Thread Henning Makholm
Scripsit Roberto C. Sanchez [EMAIL PROTECTED] OK. I think understand. qmail and pine are non-free because they disallow binary distribution, period. gnuplot can go into main since the Debian project distributes sources as a .orig.tar.gz and a .diff.gz (except for native Debian packages

Re: Question on gnuplot licensing and why it is in main

2005-03-03 Thread Francesco Poli
On Thu, 03 Mar 2005 09:36:02 + Henning Makholm wrote: Scripsit Roberto C. Sanchez [EMAIL PROTECTED] [...] * 3. provide your name and address as the primary contact for *the support of your modified version, and [...] No, because the quoted license explicitly allows the

Re: Question on gnuplot licensing and why it is in main

2005-03-03 Thread Matthew Garrett
Francesco Poli [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: * 3. provide your name and address as the primary contact for *the support of your modified version, and The above quoted clause worries me a bit, though. Identifying yourself seems to be a necessary condition for distributing modified

Question on gnuplot licensing and why it is in main

2005-03-02 Thread Roberto C. Sanchez
While looking at the gnuplot documentation (trying to figure out how to make a bar graph) I came across this in the FAQ: 1.6 Legalities Gnuplot is freeware authored by a collection of volunteers, who cannot make any legal statement about the compliance or non-compliance of gnuplot or its uses.