Re: Private company and code salvation

[Jaroslav Hajek]

On Mon, Sep 29, 2008 at 11:09 AM,  <address@hidden> wrote:
> 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 situatÃion 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.
>

David, forgive me if I'm being too naive, but if any company wants to
use Octave "commercially" and wishes an OO LGPL API to exist, they're
obviously free and welcome to donate money specifically for such a
project. I'm sure the community would answer such a demand.
It seems to me, though, that the community itself, developing GPL
software,  would not benefit from such an interface, which obviously
raises a question why should they (we) bother. Of course, a
goal-specific donation *is* a good reason.
In commercial software, you pay for using existing functionality,
while in open source software, you typically pay (donate) for
functionality that you wish to be implemented (and then you can use it
freely).


>
> 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.
>
> _______________________________________________
> Help-octave mailing list
> address@hidden
> https://www-old.cae.wisc.edu/mailman/listinfo/help-octave
>
>



-- 
RNDr. Jaroslav Hajek
computing expert
Aeronautical Research and Test Institute (VZLU)
Prague, Czech Republic
url: www.highegg.matfyz.cz