[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: proposed FAQ entries about licensing
From: |
John W. Eaton |
Subject: |
Re: proposed FAQ entries about licensing |
Date: |
Wed, 8 Apr 2009 15:41:08 -0400 |
On 8-Apr-2009, Judd Storrs wrote:
| It would be nice if there was an non-MEX interface that was available
| to any free software, not only the full GPLv3 flavor. According to the
| octave documentation there are performance penalties to using MEX in
| octave.
|
| If we require non-GPLv3 projects to code to the MEX, then it makes it
| that much easier for others to just recompile the modules locally and
| link free software libraries to Matlab.
If this is the result of having the MEX interface allow any license
and the .oct file interface requiring a license compatible with GPLv3,
then I agree that this is probably not a good thing. It is certainly
unfortunate in the case of GPLv2-only. But there are other free
software licenses that are not compatible with any version of the GPL,
and I don't think it is wise to try to make a statement like "it's OK
to link with any free software license". For example, how would you
define "free sofware license" for this purpose?
jwe
Re: proposed FAQ entries about licensing, Judd Storrs, 2009/04/07
Re: proposed FAQ entries about licensing, John W. Eaton, 2009/04/08
Re: proposed FAQ entries about licensing, Judd Storrs, 2009/04/08
Re: proposed FAQ entries about licensing, Judd Storrs, 2009/04/08
Re: proposed FAQ entries about licensing, John W. Eaton, 2009/04/08
Re: proposed FAQ entries about licensing, Judd Storrs, 2009/04/08
Re: proposed FAQ entries about licensing, John W. Eaton, 2009/04/08
Re: proposed FAQ entries about licensing, Judd Storrs, 2009/04/08
Re: proposed FAQ entries about licensing, John W. Eaton, 2009/04/08
Re: proposed FAQ entries about licensing, Judd Storrs, 2009/04/08