Re: proposed FAQ entries about licensing

[John W. Eaton]

On  7-Apr-2009, Svante Signell wrote:

| Sorry for not continuing this thread earlier, but I have been too busy
| recently (applying for funding) and then the home computer crashed... 
| 
| Summarizing up the comments the conclusions are: (correct me if I'm
| wrong)
| 
| - No p-file support in Octave (not of much use anyway)
| - Using the .mex interface is OK, for commercial use for some of the .m
| file functions if needed. Works both in Matlab and Octave.
| - Using the .oct file interface in Octave is not OK due to the
| derivative work clause.
| 
| Some comments:
| - Distribution of commercial and free .m-files does not make sense,
| since the commercially licensed files are still readable in source code

Please don't confuse commercial and proprietary.  The GPL allows
commercial uses.  What it does not allow is making proprietary
derivative works.

| - We considered to release the noncommercial code of our application
| (toolbox) under a free license, e.g. GPL v3, but according to your
| answers the interest of the free part, it can be considered as a model a
| library, would be low, at least from you developers? If this advice is
| taken seriously by us, why make any .m-file code free?? It does not
| matter in Matlab and Octave developers don't want it?

I'm having trouble deciphering the above.  What do you mean by "It
does not matter in Matlab and Octave developers don't want it?"?   I'm
certainly interested in seeing more free software become available.

jwe