Reviewing the license, I see three main points:
1) Permission to modify the software is granted, but not the right to
distribute the complete modified source code. Modifications are to be
distributed as patches to the released version.
Looking at the source being distributed (apt-get source gnuplot),
Ubuntu is compliant with the license by including patches to the source
code as separate patches, rather than inline in the source (although the
change for docs/gnuplot.texi is debatable).
2) Permission to distribute binaries produced by compiling modified sources is
granted, provided you
... 3. provide your name and address as the primary contact for the support of
your modified version
While this is mentioned in the linked Debian bug, I'm not sure where
such a change needs be made. It may be that the use of Maintainer is
sufficient, or it may be that this belongs somewhre else (I only find
references to "primary contact" in the license).
3) Permission to distribute the released version of the source code
along with corresponding source modifications in the form of a patch
file is granted with same provisions 2 through 4 for binary
distributions.
This is indeed the practice followed by Ubuntu for this package: the
binaries are distributed with a special version (the "revision" code),
with information that the appropriate contact is the Ubuntu developers,
and with upstream contact information included in the source.
--
gnuplot is not GNU and not free Software
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/195111
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu.
--
ubuntu-bugs mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
