Maybe I'm misunderstanding your point, but that doesn't satisfy the original poster's intent. If you're distributing the source for a mex file, you're not obscuring it. So, you've solved one problem (allowing company to sell source code that can be used in any matlab-like mex interface), but not another (obscuring the source code). It sounds like the original question was primarily concerned with protection of source code.
Charles
==========
Out of damp and gloomy days, out of solitude, out of loveless words directed at us, conclusions grow up in us like fungus: one morning they are there, we know not how, and they gaze upon us, morose and gray. Woe to the thinker who is not the gardener but only the soil of the plants that grow in him.
- Friedrich Nietzsche
On Tue, Sep 30, 2008 at 5:00 AM, David Bateman
<address@hidden> wrote:
Which is why I've always said API and not ABI and advocate the ability
to distribute mex-like code as source that can be linked against Octave
by the user, but never stated that binaries of mex-files or oct-files
can be distributed under anything else but the GPL. The dynamic linking
argument in support of the GPL to force distribute of source under the
GPL doesn't apply here as we are talking about a mex API that is not
Octave specific.
D.
--
David Bateman
address@hidden
Motorola Labs - Paris +33 1 69 35 48 04 (Ph)
Parc Les Algorithmes, Commune de St Aubin +33 6 72 01 06 33 (Mob)
91193 Gif-Sur-Yvette FRANCE +33 1 69 35 77 01 (Fax)
The information contained in this communication has been classified as:
[x] General Business Information
[ ] Motorola Internal Use Only
[ ] Motorola Confidential Proprietary
_______________________________________________