[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Private company and code salvation
From: |
dbateman |
Subject: |
Re: Private company and code salvation |
Date: |
Mon, 29 Sep 2008 11:09:15 +0200 |
User-agent: |
Mutt/1.5.13 (2006-08-11) |
On Sun, Sep 28, 2008 at 11:18:20PM -0400, Jordi Guti?rrez Hermoso wrote:
> 2008/9/28 dbateman <address@hidden>:
> > Frankly, for wider commercial acceptance of Octave I believe its necessary
> > for Octave to define an API for compiled code that allows commercial
> > distribution of the code.
>
> The GPL already allows commercial distribution of the code, unless by
> "commercial" you don't mean "selling" or anything implying money, but
> rather "closing it up".
No I meant the third path. The ability for a user to write code for
distribution that isn't required to be GPLed. Octave is a language like
C/C++, and code that just happens to be to be compiled with GCC/G++ is
not required to fall under the GPL and the same should be turn of
Octave. However, if a user writes code that modifies GCC/G++ itself then
rightly they are required to distribute their modifications if they
share their version of GCC/G++. We are in a similar situat?ion with Octave,
where the m-files and mex-files written by users are fully distributable,
but oct-files aren't, so their is an incoherence in what is writing code
for the Octave language and what counts as modifying Octave itself.
Some of us make a living from the code we write and in that context the
GPL makes lots of sense for the code that we need to make our living but
can't make a profit from. That basically includes all of the tools, and
its in our interest that we reduce the cost of development and
commoditize these tools so that we reduce our costs, and the GPL fits
that bill perfectly. Which is why you see lots of companies writing
GPLed, so that they themselves can use it but also profit from any
additional code written but someone else. Think of all the GPLed code
that IBM for example has written.
However that also means that some of the high value code that we write
must be maintained in complete control of the author/owner of that code,
so that we can feed our kids with the effort we put into writing it.
> > Never the binaries as they would link against
> > liboctave and liboctinterp and so fall under the GPL of those libraries, but
> > still an LGPL API to Octave would be greatly appreciated,
>
> As a tactical matter, an LGPL here might be acceptable... although
> personally it makes me a little uncomfortable. And since jwe is I
> think the major copyright holder, I doubt he'd agree to it.
I've already expressed personally to John my belief that some sort of
API/ABI to Octave that allows distribution of the "user" code, not octave
itself, is a limiting factor to companies uptake of Octave. John himself even
suggested offline a mex-like interface to Octave under such a license,
though that seems to be limiting for the code write. The current situation
where the freely distributable API to Octave is mex is a bit stupid,
though its the choice that FreeMat made and if Octave chooses to go that
way, then optimizing that interface becomes a priority.
Jordi, given the amount of GPLed code I've contributed in my life, I
don't think anyone could call me anti-GPL. Though, I'm a realist when it
comes to the needs of individuals to live off of their effort and so
will support the position of corporate/commerical/industrial users of
Octave and their need for some control of the code they write. Let them
take control of Octave though NEVER, which is why the GPL for Octave is
so important.
Regards
David
>
> - Jordi G. H.
- Private company and code salvation, Oscar Bayona Candel, 2008/09/25
- Re: Private company and code salvation, Thomas Weber, 2008/09/25
- Re: Private company and code salvation, charles reid, 2008/09/27
- Re: Private company and code salvation, dbateman, 2008/09/28
- Message not available
- Re: Private company and code salvation,
dbateman <=
- Re: Private company and code salvation, Jaroslav Hajek, 2008/09/29
- Re: Private company and code salvation, David Bateman, 2008/09/29
- Re: Private company and code salvation, Jaroslav Hajek, 2008/09/29
- Re: Private company and code salvation, David Bateman, 2008/09/29
- Re: Private company and code salvation, Jaroslav Hajek, 2008/09/29
- Re: Private company and code salvation, Jaroslav Hajek, 2008/09/29
- "LGPL API" (was: Re: Private company and code salvation), John W. Eaton, 2008/09/29
- Re: "LGPL API" (was: Re: Private company and code salvation), Steven Levine, 2008/09/29
- Re: "LGPL API" (was: Re: Private company and code salvation), Sergei Steshenko, 2008/09/29
- Re: "LGPL API" (was: Re: Private company and code salvation), John W. Eaton, 2008/09/29