Re: proposed FAQ entries about licensing

[dbateman]

Svante Signell wrote:
> 
> - Distribution of commercial and free .m-files does not make sense,
> since the commercially licensed files are still readable in source code
> form, c.f. Matlab toolboxes many years ago and now.
> 

Why doesn't it make sense? A commerical copyrighted file still has all of
the protection given by the copyright even if it is readable.. The parallel
is a book which is always readable but still protected by copyright... So go
ahead and distribute the majority of your code with GPL and the rest with a
commerical license. The only protection you'll miss is that plagarism
becomes easier, but still illegal.



> - We considered to release the noncommercial code of our application
> (toolbox) under a free license, e.g. GPL v3, but according to your
> answers the interest of the free part, it can be considered as a model a
> library, would be low, at least from you developers? If this advice is
> taken seriously by us, why make any .m-file code free?? It does not
> matter in Matlab and Octave developers don't want it?
> 

Because a set of code might have a limited user base, that doesn't make it
useless... Any code that is freely distributed out there is eventually
useful to someone.

D.

-- 
View this message in context: 
http://www.nabble.com/proposed-FAQ-entries-about-licensing-tp22685608p22928063.html
Sent from the Octave - Maintainers mailing list archive at Nabble.com.