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: Judd Storrs
Subject: Re: proposed FAQ entries about licensing
Date: Wed, 8 Apr 2009 11:09:58 -0400

It would be nice if there was an non-MEX interface that was available
to any free software, not only the full GPLv3 flavor. According to the
octave documentation there are performance penalties to using MEX in
octave.

If we require non-GPLv3 projects to code to the MEX, then it makes it
that much easier for others to just recompile the modules locally and
link free software libraries to Matlab.

--judd


On Wed, Apr 8, 2009 at 11:00 AM, Judd Storrs <address@hidden> wrote:
>> GPLv2 can be automatically promoted to GPLv3. So yes, you can
>> distribute them, but they will be covered by GPLv3. Assuming they link
>> to the newest interface, of course. Those linking to old interface may
>> remain under GPLv2.
>
> On its own, the FSF consideres the GPLv2 license to be incompatible
> with the GPLv3. GPL license compatibility is a mess. See
>
> http://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/gpl-faq.html#AllCompatibility
>
> Only if the software is licensed as GPLv2 or "any later version" can
> it be promoted to v3 and included with GPLv3 software.
>
> There are a number of projects that are specifically "GPLv2 only" and
> therefore incompatible with GPLv3. Such as the linux kernel and FLTK.
>
> --judd
>


reply via email to

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