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. _______________________________________________ Perldl mailing list [email protected] http://mailman.jach.hawaii.edu/mailman/listinfo/perldl
