octave-maintainers
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: matlab2tikz and dual BSD/GPL licensing


From: Nico Schlömer
Subject: Re: matlab2tikz and dual BSD/GPL licensing
Date: Thu, 16 Dec 2010 01:00:10 +0100
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686 (x86_64); en-US; rv:1.9.2.13) Gecko/20101207 Thunderbird/3.1.7

All,

I embrace the idea of open source and I'll be more than happy to include all changes necessary to have the package run in Octave. Whatever patch makes it easy for you to go have it in Octave (and keep it running in MATLAB(r)) will go into matlab2tikz.

Cheers,
Nico



On 12/15/2010 09:13 PM, bpabbott wrote:
On Dec 15, 2010, at 01:12 PM, "John W. Eaton" <address@hidden> wrote:

On 15-Dec-2010, bpabbott wrote:

| If we decided to include a derivative of this function in Octave's
| core then I think we'd want to branch the development. I don't think
| this would be a big deal since the coding standards for Octave would
| require a rewrite anyway (only minor changes are needed to run
| matlab2tikz).
|
| Personally, I'd like to add this function to Octave's core. This
| would allow for consistent TikZ output for the gnuplot and OpenGL
| backends. If that were done, the Octave version would be GPLv3 and
| would include Nico's name as author and copyright holder. The
| maintenance and development could then continue under Octave.

Is the software you want to use actively maintained? If so, then I
don't think it would be desirable for us to fork development.
Instead, I think it makes sense to use the external code with as few
changes as possible. But if we do need some changes, then we should
consider maintaining them as patches, or minimizing them in some way.
Otherwise, we end up making a lot of work for ourselves if we want to
try to follow the changes that are happening in the main development
branch.

But if this package is not actively developed and it is unlikely that
it will be in the future, then it might make sense for us to take on
the job of maintaining it.

We already have a precedent for this type of thing in Octave. For
example, we import the gl2ps and zfstream sources into Octave and they
don't follow our coding guidelines. If we need to change these files,
we would first attempt to get changes accepted by their developers. I
think that only if that failed should we consider maintaining our own
modified version independently.

jwe

I like this approach.

matlab2tikz is actively maintained, but unless the new OOP features are
added to Octave it will need some minor changes to run.

I'm working on a patch to allow it to run on Octave. When I'm done I'll
discuss patching the original sources with Nico (matlab2tikz's author).

Ben




reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]