Re: GPLv3

[Quentin Spencer]

John W. Eaton wrote:
> Since Octave is "GNU Octave", the GNU project would like for us to
> switch to GPLv3 for future releases.  Since Octave 3.0 will be coming
> soon (really, this time I mean it) we need to consider this switch
> now.  Of the many dependencies we have, are there any which have
> licenses that are OK with GPLv2 but conflict with GPLv3?  For example,
> any that are "GPLv2 only" (without the "at your option, any later
> version" clause)?  I suppose the first thing to do is make a list of
> all the dependencies.  Do we have one?  If not, it would be useful to
> have anyway.
>
> Thanks,
>
> jwe
>
>   

From the Fedora octave.spec file for creating the RPM, I have the 
following build dependencies, with my quick recollection (could be 
wrong) about the license:

bison (gpl?)
flex (gpl?)
less (gpl)
tetex (?)
gcc-gfortran (gpl)
lapack-devel (public domain)
blas-devel (public domain)
ncurses-devel (gpl?)
zlib-devel (gpl?)
hdf5-devel (?)
texinfo (?)
readline-devel (gpl?)
glibc-devel (gpl)
fftw-devel (gpl)
gperf (gpl)
ghostscript (gpl)
suitesparse-devel (bsd-like ?)
glpk-devel (gpl)
gnuplot (something odd and bsd-like)

These are only direct dependencies. Some of the -devel packages required 
in the Fedora build system will pull in other dependencies. This may 
also omit some really basic dependencies that the Fedora build system 
installs by default.

Quentin