Re: proposed FAQ entries about licensing

[Ben Abbott]

On Mar 25, 2009, at 3:32 AM, Svante Signell wrote:

> 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

A C file would need to be of the MEX variety.

A C/C++ file would need to be of the MEX or .oct variety.

Or do you mean something else?

Ben