Toolboxes? (RE: GPLv3)

[Schirmacher, Rolf]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Thomas Weber [mailto:address@hidden
> Sent: Friday, October 12, 2007 1:16 PM
> To: Octave Maintainers
> Subject: Re: GPLv3
> 
...
> That said, I personally dislike the idea of replicating Matlab's
> toolboxes. Matlab needs them for an easier selling argument ('another
> toolbox for just $$$'). I'd prefer Python's 'batteries included'
> approach for Octave.
> 
>       Thomas

Hello Thomas

That argument is not really valid for octave, batteries are free anyway :-)

The major benefit of a package / toolbox approach is the managability of the
overall project and in fact we have something even worse right now: octave
and octave-forge with packages. Having only octave (with packages) makes
things much more simple *and* allows a broad range of contributors to
contribute in (and emotionally identify themselves with) their special field
of interest/knowledge, e.g. by maintaining a (their) package/toolbox. 
As open software is much about how to make people contribute, I think, this
might be important.

Besides that, when persuading people to use octave instead of matlab, it is
quite important to tell them that octave is not only something like the
matlab core but also the "toolboxes" because they are:
- used to think about toolboxes as something they require and want to be
sure to get with octave also,
- aware of the great financial impact of toolboxes in matlab (as the core
license is relatively cheap, compared to the sum of all toolboxes often
required) and 
- aware of the additional *freedom* they get by being able to use a broad
range of tools they would not be allowed to by matlab.
Especially the last reason is one of the core motivations of GNU, so we
probably should support that awareness.

Regards,

Rolf