Re: Octave Forge: Package groups and properties defined, RFC.

[Carlo De Falco]

> On 8 Mar 2017, at 10:21, Olaf Till <address@hidden> wrote:
> 
> The point was actually that the _package_ must be compatible with
> Octaves GPL3+. You're right, if the package contains only m-code, an
> arbitrary free software license is enough (GPL3+ recommended). We
> probably should reword this. But "open source" won't do, since it
> doesn't necessarily mean "Free/Libre Software".


Of course an m-code package must necessarily be "open source" as m-files 
are human readable, but compatibility whith the license of Octave is
not required in this case, so, as far as I know, but I am not a lawyer, 
distribution of non-free or even proprietary packages is entirely possible.

I'm not saying we should promote non free software, of course, just that it is 
possible.

c.