[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
- Re: randlib licence, Petr Gajdos, 2007/07/11
- Re: randlib licence, David Bateman, 2007/07/11
- Re: randlib licence,
Petr Gajdos <=
- Re: randlib licence, David Bateman, 2007/07/11
- Re: randlib licence, Petr Gajdos, 2007/07/11
- Re: randlib licence, John W. Eaton, 2007/07/24
- Re: randlib licence, David Bateman, 2007/07/24
- Re: randlib licence, John W. Eaton, 2007/07/24