[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Further on MEX
From: |
Søren Hauberg |
Subject: |
Re: Further on MEX |
Date: |
Sun, 04 Jan 2009 17:47:29 +0100 |
Hi,
I cannot comment on points 1-3, but
son, 04 01 2009 kl. 15:27 +0530, skrev Aravindh Krishnamoorthy:
> Also on a related note:
> 4. [matter-of-taste] I'd have liked a liboctavemex.so (with mx... MEX
> functions) released under LGPL, but I'm not sure how strong supporters
> of software-freedom and GPL the Octave team is. Would you pls. comment
> on this?
I think people have different feelings about this. The GPL encourages
freedom much more than the LGPL, which IMHO is a good thing. But LGPL
would have some practical benefits, such as being able to link with
libraries that are Free, but not GPL compatible.
That being said, I doubt that a move to LGPL is possible as it would
require getting permission to relicense code written by many
contributors. This is a tedious and time-consuming task, that also would
require legal expertise. I doubt that anybody would want to work on such
a task, even if it was decided that LGPL would be good. Also, Octave
links to quite a few libraries that are only GPL, which makes Octave
"inherit" this license.
Soren
- Further on MEX, Aravindh Krishnamoorthy, 2009/01/04
- Re: Further on MEX,
Søren Hauberg <=
- 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