[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: GPLv3
From: |
Thomas Weber |
Subject: |
Re: GPLv3 |
Date: |
Fri, 14 Sep 2007 10:00:28 +0200 |
Am Freitag, den 14.09.2007, 03:06 -0400 schrieb John W. Eaton:
> On 13-Sep-2007, Quentin Spencer wrote:
> | lapack-devel (public domain)
> | blas-devel (public domain)
>
> Yes, I think that these are essentially OK for any purpose, but we
> also use ATLAS, which has a different license, and like zlib and
> ncurses, I haven't looked at it closely enough to know for sure
> whether it is GPLv3 compatible, but I think it is.
Is this actually a problem? I mean, Octave uses the LAPACK and BLAS
interfaces. They can be provided by ATLAS, but for example in Debian the
packages installed during build are the public domain packages.
> | suitesparse-devel (bsd-like ?)
>
> SuiteSparse appears to be distributed under the terms of LGPLv2.1
> only, and not "any later version".
I just looked trough the differenent License files in suitesparse and
they all seem to be GPL or LGPL, but all with "or any later
version"-option.
Thomas
- GPLv3, John W. Eaton, 2007/09/13
Re: GPLv3, Thomas Weber, 2007/09/14