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

[Juan Pablo Carbajal]

On Wed, Mar 8, 2017 at 10:56 AM, Carlo De Falco <address@hidden> wrote:
>
>> 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.
>
My comment only applies to external packages. I would not make
compromises on the community packages: these must be Libre software.
Againk, by putting strong constrains on the external packages we will
loose what I consider perfectly valid Libre software under GPlv3
incompatible licenses (like UEPL).
We also loos the chance to add people who do not understand Libre
software, but like the idea, although they do not call it like that.