Re: Matlab package manager

[John W. Eaton]

On 13-Dec-2006, David Bateman wrote:

| Søren Hauberg wrote:
| 
| > I don't if there is a need to relicense the code to a BSD license, but 
| > if it's okay with John, it's okay with.
| >   
| I think the only contributors to pkg.m are you and I at the moment.
| Therefore, we are free to BSD license this file. The question is would
| John allow a BSD licensed file in the octave core, or would he force it
| to be relicensed (which of course he can do used BSD) to GPL. If it is
| relicensed as GPL it would force us to maintain a secondary repository
| for pkg.m, and any contributions to pkg.m from others we'd have to
| explicitly get permission to accept them in a BSD licensed file..
| Therefore I'd prefer if pkg.m was BSD licensed in octave itself.

Why do you think it needs a BSD style license?  Since the package
manager is implemented entirely in interpreted scripts, it is not
linked with anything, so simply running it in Matlab doesn't cause the
two to be linked together in the usual sense that the GPL describes.
But in any case, you could also dual license it if you like.

jwe