On Oct 29, 2009, at 6:15 AM, Diab Jerius wrote: > > > On Wed, 2009-10-28 at 20:34 -0600, Craig DeForest wrote: >> Yep. The only real question remaining for Tim J is whether they got a >> viral Free style license (e.g. the right to bundle it with Starlink >> under the GPL), in which case forks are explicitly allowed. >> >> (Mobile) >> >> >> On Oct 28, 2009, at 8:22 PM, Frossie <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >>> >>> Tim Jenness wrote on October 28: >>> >>>> >>>> It's a bit fuzzy but about 20 years ago Starlink were given >>>> permission >>>> to distribute PGPLOT. There was a big brouhaha at the time. At one >>>> point Starlink reimplemented PGPLOT in terms of GKS but in the end >>>> everything was cleared up and "native" PGPLOT was officially >>>> adopted >>>> by The Starlink Project and they were allowed to put it in all >>>> their >>>> source code and binary distributions. >>>> >>>> Now, given that was a long time ago I have no idea whether Starlink >>>> were given written permission to tweak PGPLOT away from Tim's >>>> original. I can probably ask someone who was around at the time. >>> >>> Note that TimP does not hold the PGPLOT copyright - CalTech does. >>> Even >>> if they had made some written arrangement with Starlink, it is >>> extremely unlikely that it would cover us. >>> > > > XSPEC (http://heasarc.nasa.gov/docs/xanadu/xspec/) ships with a > modified > PGPLOT library (uses "real" PostScript fonts) that seems to have been > forked many years ago. >
Cool. I'd like to integrate those patches into our Starlink pgplot along with Craig's RGBI patches. (when I say "I" I probably mean "we" since I'm a bit busy for the next month or two). I'm happy to accept patches is probably more to the point.... Wonder what would happen if we had a single unified patched up PGPLOT.... -- Tim Jenness Joint Astronomy Centre _______________________________________________ Perldl mailing list [email protected] http://mailman.jach.hawaii.edu/mailman/listinfo/perldl
