[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: Licensing of Octave Scripts

From: David Grundberg
Subject: Re: Licensing of Octave Scripts
Date: Mon, 08 Feb 2010 10:30:00 +0100
User-agent: Thunderbird (X11/20090812)

Judd Storrs wrote:
On Sat, Feb 6, 2010 at 6:47 AM, David Grundberg <address@hidden> wrote:
The FSF FAQ is confusing on scripting issues because it is very brief
and uses a distinct language.

The FSF FAQ is the FSF's interpretation of what the license means.
Personally, I think the FSF's is back-pedalling the scope of the
license in the FAQ in a way that the license does not support. The
distinction between builtin and extension is pretty artificial when
you consider that the GPL permits forking and creation of new derived
software. What was an extension can easily become a builtin in a fork.


Like any legal document, the license is open to interpretation. But I don't think the problem lies with the license, the license does what it can under the scope of copyright licenses. I think the problem is that circumstances regarding derivate works of software are not clear enough. Is the FSF doing wrong in taking the side of GPL protection, in cases where the law says neither one or the other? It is possible that courts judges to the benefit of free software.


reply via email to

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