Re: Pre-compiled octave for Windows

[John W. Eaton]

On 19-Dec-2006, David Bateman wrote:

| Michael Goffioul wrote:
| > 
| > There is only one version of the DLL's, isn't it? Concerning
| > octinterp.dll in bin/ dir and a different
| > one in lib/ dir, I don't understand what you mean. The .lib and .dll
| > files are coupled: the .lib file
| > defines the symbols that are found in the .dll and is used at link time.
| > So you need both of them
| > (actually, the .lib files are only installed if you selected the
| > "Development" package in the installer).
| 
| Ok, I'm not an expert on windows and missed this..
| 
| > Maybe it's simply due to NSIS, which forces you to explicitely accept
| > the license
| > when you define one in the NSI script (I didn't check yet). What is better:
| > not showing any license page at installation, or showing a license when
| > an accept button,
| > even it doesn't really make sense?
| 
| Ask John what he prefers...

I think that showing the license is fine, but as David says, you don't
have to accept the license just to install and use Octave, so if that
is what the button is for, then I think we should find a way to avoid
presenting it to the person installing Octave.  Users should be seeing
a message stating that Octave is free software when they run Octave.
It currently does not specifically mention the GPL, but we could
change that and make it so that "help copying" or "copying" will
display the GPL.

jwe