Hi, Peter
There is already a 2.3.2 release at ftp://agnes.dida.physik.uni-essen.de/home/maurice/, so yours can be grx-2.3.3 - leaning towards grx-3.0.
Opps! What's new in 2.3.2?
(2) The GRX graphics library is distributed under the terms of the GNU LGPL (Library General Public License) with the following amendments and/or exceptions:
- Using the DOS versions (DOS only! this exception DOES NOT apply tothe Linux version) you are permitted to distribute an application linked with GRX in binary only, provided that the documentation of the program:
a) informs the user that GRX is used in the program, AND b) provides the user with the necessary information abouthow to obtain GRX. (i.e. ftp site, etc..)
This is what I do not like in particular. It gives DOS authors special rights but does not grant them to Linux authors. That's not really fair, IMHO.
Well, my intention was not to change the license (that is OK for me), but to fix the incompatibilities and clarify it for future contributions. The copying.cb file says "This document describes the terms for distributing the source code of and any derived work based on the GRX graphics library", but the bgi license is not compatible, so really the 2.3.1 is not usable. I wanted to fix that (because Hartmut has posted his acknowledgement to the list).
With regard to the DOS exception I think it didn't give DOS authors more power than Linux authors using a shared GRX lib. DOS didn't have shared libs.
Nevertheless, I don't have problems with a LGPL only license, but I don't know if I can do the changes you want without the express acknowledgement of a lot of people.
Another thingy: When we really get those license issues solved, I'd like to comtribute a version of GRX for MS-Windows 9x/NT which has been developed on my request.
A win32 version will be great, and I will be glad to integrate it (2.3.4?), but you must decide what to do with the license.
Greetings, M.Alvarez