[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Further on MEX
From: |
Aravindh Krishnamoorthy |
Subject: |
Re: Further on MEX |
Date: |
Wed, 7 Jan 2009 11:01:58 +0530 |
Dear John,
> My objection is that it is at least against the spirit of the GPL and
> I would not like to move further in this direction. I have no
> interest in encouraging proprietary add-ons for Octave.
I was under the impression that you'd like to encourage proprietary
addons and found it useful so long as they didn't interfere with core
Octave development.
I don't want to circumvent the views of the Octave community (and GPL)
in implementing a feature -- non-free MEX support will be implemented
by me only if Octave community agrees to it. So, at the moment, NO.
However, I'll continue to contribute to Octave/C++. For numerical
computation code, I'll have to check employment terms regarding
open-source contribution.
Yours sincerely,
Aravindh
- Re: Further on MEX, (continued)
- Re: Further on MEX, David Bateman, 2009/01/04
- Re: Further on MEX, Aravindh Krishnamoorthy, 2009/01/05
- Re: Further on MEX, John W. Eaton, 2009/01/05
- Re: Further on MEX, David Bateman, 2009/01/05
- Re: Further on MEX, Aravindh Krishnamoorthy, 2009/01/06
- Re: Further on MEX, John W. Eaton, 2009/01/06
- Re: Further on MEX, Aravindh Krishnamoorthy, 2009/01/06
- Re: Further on MEX, Jaroslav Hajek, 2009/01/06
- Re: Further on MEX, David Bateman, 2009/01/06
- Re: Further on MEX, John W. Eaton, 2009/01/06
- Re: Further on MEX,
Aravindh Krishnamoorthy <=
- Re: Further on MEX, John W. Eaton, 2009/01/07
- Re: Further on MEX, Aravindh Krishnamoorthy, 2009/01/07
- Re: Further on MEX, David Bateman, 2009/01/07
- Re: Further on MEX, Aravindh Krishnamoorthy, 2009/01/07
- Re: Further on MEX, David Bateman, 2009/01/07
- Re: Further on MEX, John W. Eaton, 2009/01/07
- Re: Further on MEX, David Bateman, 2009/01/07
- Re: Further on MEX, John W. Eaton, 2009/01/07
- Re: Further on MEX, David Bateman, 2009/01/07
- Re: Further on MEX, Thomas Weber, 2009/01/08