octave-maintainers
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: randlib licence


From: Petr Gajdos
Subject: Re: randlib licence
Date: Wed, 11 Jul 2007 15:18:21 +0200
User-agent: KMail/1.9.5

Hi David,

first, I must say, that I haven't another wish than leave octave as is, 
really.  As I stated before, I am packager of octave only and law is far away 
from my mind :). But, can you define notion "believe", which you use two 
times before? Your answer has some presumptions, doesn't it? 

SUSE layers've asked me, and I've asked you. And I've asked authors of randlib 
themself. After few weeks, there's no reply at all (btw. thank you for your 
replies). I am really sorry, but I need *yes or no*, not something in the 
mindst of. Patch I send you I rate as temporary solution, I preffer remove it 
as soon as posible from factory. Let's solve it before 10.3! 
Petr

Dne středa 11 červenec 2007 13:58 jste napsal(a):
> Petr Gajdos wrote:
> > Hello,
> > I have tryed to remove randlib from octave 2.9.12. Can please someone
> > look at patch attached, if it's ok?
> >
> > Have a nice day
> > Petr
>
> Petr,
>
> Does SUSE require this to distribute Octave?
>
> > Dne středa 13 červen 2007 00:20 jste napsal(a):
> >> On 12-Jun-2007, David Bateman wrote:
> >> | which makes the whole question moot. If the authors, as owners of the
> >> | copyright on the code, place the code in the public domain, I don't
> >> | see how an ACM restriction can apply. The only question I see is in
> >> | the statement "that we have written". If there is any code in randlib
> >> | that was not written by the authors, then it would default to the ACM
> >> | license as the only one under which you can distribute.. I don't
> >> | believe this is the case, so I think randlib is in the clear for
> >> | incorporation in GPLed software..
>
> Basically as I stated above I believe the code is not constrained by the
> ACM license as the code is explicitly placed in the public domain by the
> authors. So I believe the code is GPL compatible. However if SUSE
> lawyers think otherwise, then that is something else and the patch you
> supplied might be a way out.
>
> However, the state/seed means of switching between the generators is
> compatible with what matlab does and it would be a shame to loose this
> immediately, as it will allow existing Octave code that explicitly sets
> the key to continue to have the same behavior. Yes in the long term the
> randlib generators should go, but if SUSE can live with randlib in
> Octave perhaps it would be better to keep the old generators around till
> say the stable release after the 3.0 series (3.2?).
>
> Regards
> David



reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]