On Monday, February 27, 2017, Pantxo <
address@hidden> wrote:
mbro009 wrote
> Our current plans are to make some significant additions to Thodica
> Octave. The maintainers of GNU Octave may consider the changes on a case
> by case basis and include into GNU Octave if they judge them as suitable.
>
> The specific bugs I refer to in my post above relate to how the Lapack
> routines ?gecon are called and the length of the work arrays required for
> real vs complex.
>
> Thank you for your consideration.
>
> Matthew
Matthew,
As an Octave contributor, I find it quite bold (but absolutely legal) that
you impose rules when it comes to have access to your source files. Don't
misinterpret me:
* packaging a different version of Octave for different purpose is a hard
work which I find normal that you want to be paid for and 30 USD is more
than reasonable.
* providing commercial support for using this version or whatever version of
Octave is also fine.
but from a "pragmatic" POV
* fixing bugs you didn't even take the time to report is inefficient: if
ever we have access to your source files, it will be a harder work to
integrate your changes
* even though the GPL does allows you to ask money for your modifications of
licensed files, I would definitely vote for *not promoting this fork in
Octave web site*.
Pantxo
--
View this message in context: http://octave.1599824.n4.nabble.com/Possible-inclusion-in-commercial-support-list-tp4681953p4682041.html
Sent from the Octave - Maintainers mailing list archive at Nabble.com.