On 23/05/06, Jonathan Underwood <jonathan.underwood@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On 23/05/06, Quentin Spencer <qspencer@xxxxxxxx> wrote: > I haven't read the license, but your descriptions sound similar to the > license for gnuplot, which is in core. You may want to look at its > license. I think it says that modifications may only be distributed as > patches. Your synopsis is broadly right - modified versions must be distributed as original source plus patches. http://gnuplot.cvs.sourceforge.net/gnuplot/gnuplot/Copyright?view=markup
Not that it should be taken as authority, but wikipedia has this to say about gnuplot: The program is distributed under a license which permits copying and modification of the source code. However, modified versions are only allowed to be distributed as patch files: as such, the gnuplot licence is not compatible with the GPL, and is not free software (according to FSF, DFSG, and OSI). One could ask why it's still in Core... it certainly sounds like it shouldn't be. If, like me, you make daily use of gnuplot, that idea might not fill you with joy. J. -- fedora-extras-list mailing list fedora-extras-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-extras-list
