[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: proposed FAQ entries about licensing
From: |
Svante Signell |
Subject: |
Re: proposed FAQ entries about licensing |
Date: |
Wed, 25 Mar 2009 08:32:56 +0100 |
Sorry for intruding, I'm one of the lurkers on this list. Question
below.
On Tue, 2009-03-24 at 13:30 -0400, John W. Eaton wrote:
> Following this discussion:
>
>
> https://www-old.cae.wisc.edu/pipermail/octave-maintainers/2009-January/010066.html
>
> I asked the FSF about licensing for MEX. The results of the FSF
> response to my question are the following proposed FAQ entries.
>
> Q: If I write code using Octave do I have to release it under the
> GPL?
>
> A: The answer depends on precisely how the code is written and how it
> works.
>
> Code written entirely in the scripting language of Octave
> (interpreted code in .m files) may be released under the terms of
> whatever license you choose.
>
> Code written using Octave's native plug-in interface (also known
> as a .oct file) necessarily links with Octave internals and is
> considered a derivative work of Octave and therefore must be
> released under terms that are compatible with the GPL.
>
What about replacing a .m file with a C/C++ function for execution speed
purposes? Does this fall in the same category as an .m-file, i.e. no
requirements on the license?
Thanks,
Svante