octave-maintainers
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

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

Re: proposed FAQ entries about licensing


From: Svante Signell
Subject: Re: proposed FAQ entries about licensing
Date: Wed, 25 Mar 2009 08:32:56 +0100

Sorry for intruding, I'm one of the lurkers on this list. Question
below.

On Tue, 2009-03-24 at 13:30 -0400, John W. Eaton wrote:
> Following this discussion:
> 
>   
> https://www-old.cae.wisc.edu/pipermail/octave-maintainers/2009-January/010066.html
> 
> I asked the FSF about licensing for MEX.  The results of the FSF
> response to my question are the following proposed FAQ entries.
> 
>   Q:  If I write code using Octave do I have to release it under the
>       GPL?
> 
>   A:  The answer depends on precisely how the code is written and how it
>       works.
> 
>       Code written entirely in the scripting language of Octave
>       (interpreted code in .m files) may be released under the terms of
>       whatever license you choose.
> 
>       Code written using Octave's native plug-in interface (also known
>       as a .oct file) necessarily links with Octave internals and is
>       considered a derivative work of Octave and therefore must be
>       released under terms that are compatible with the GPL.
> 
What about replacing a .m file with a C/C++ function for execution speed
purposes? Does this fall in the same category as an .m-file, i.e. no
requirements on the license?

Thanks,
Svante


reply via email to

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