Re: proposed FAQ entries about licensing

[David Bateman]

John W. Eaton wrote:
> On 20-Apr-2009, Judd Storrs wrote:
>
> | Was it ever decided if we can add C99 complex-style MEX accessors even if
> | they don't exist in Matlab? If I recall correctly, the main objection is
> | that code written using the new function couldn't work on Matlab, thus the
> | MEX files were obviously derived from Octave?
>
> That's my position, and I have no plans to add anything to the MEX
> interface.
>   
Yes but we could write an extension for matlab that makes a copy to 
create the C99 values while it Octave the copy could be avoided.. That 
should level the playing field a bit for the mex interface..

> | Suppose I go ahead and write a set of limited utility functions that only
> | use Matlab mex that convert complex matrices into C99-form (causing all
> | sorts of data copying when used in Matlab). Would octave be allowed to
> | implement them more efficiently?
>
> As I see it, your functions for Matlab would not be part of the Matlab
> MEX interface and your functions for Octave would have to be written
> using Octave internals, so they would be subject to the terms of the
> GPL.
>   
I'd have thought that a pointer to a C99 complex data given from Octave 
wouldn't be accessing Octave's internals as such, but if you take that 
position, fine I can live with a less than optimal mex interface.

D.

> jwe
>
>   


--
David Bateman                                address@hidden
35 rue Gambetta                              +33 1 46 04 02 18 (Home)
92100 Boulogne-Billancourt FRANCE            +33 6 72 01 06 33 (Mob)