the relevant file is: http://plplot.svn.sourceforge.net/viewvc/plplot/trunk/lib/nn/README
I would note that AFAIK nn is only a small part of plplot, the greater package is not subject to this license. To expand on the suspected problems, 1) copyright transfer means you can't distribute your modifications without permission of CSIRO. i.e. it isn't explicit that your back- contributed modifications will be distributed under the same license as the source. Perhaps that's a bit harsh of a reading though and the "REMAIN" word makes clear the intention that redistribution of changes is naturally ok. 2) what does "without charge" extend too? i.e. can you charge for binaries as allowed by the GPL but it becomes problematic with the "nominal reproduction fee" allowed for copies of the source code? Or as the common distribution method these days is over the internet, media via mail now falls into the "no weaseling out by delivering code on punch card media" clause? note plplot is apparently licensed as LGPL and the discussion was WRT including nnbathy in GRASS GIS, which is GPL. See also that discussion on grass-dev: http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.gis.grass.pkg.general/2994 The original author (Pavel) mentioned in a private email that this has already been the subject of a long debian thread and it was decided that everything was ok. So we should look for that in the archives and study it before getting into too much of a swirl. The copyright is his former place of employment, so he doesn't easily have the ability to "just change it". He seemed to think the main problem was with the "triangle" package, which was already replaced. The spirit of the license seems healthy enough (Pavel seems to believe/ intend that it is GPL compatible), the worry is that the letter of it could be misinterpreted. regards, Hamish -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
