> 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). That's strange. It seems to me that this practice is explicitly taken into account in the point 4. at http://www.opensource.org/docs/definition.php Accordingly, an open-source license must guarantee that source be readily available, but may require that it be distributed as pristine base sources plus patches. In this way, "unofficial" changes can be made available but readily distinguished from the base source. In my opinion the CCPL licence isn't a free software licence, because it restricts the use (only for academic use) and oblige to send back the patches within one year and transfer the copyright, not because the differences have to be distributed as patches. -- Pat -- fedora-extras-list mailing list fedora-extras-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-extras-list
