Re: proposed FAQ entries about licensing

[David Bateman]

Jaroslav Hajek wrote:
> OK, I believe you, but I just don't understand the reasoning, then.
> There is also the (albeit slight) possibility that the FSF people
> missed some important detail. I see the link to liboctave et al.
> hard-wired in the produced mex file and that seems to me to make it a
> derivative work of Octave. There's certainly no liboctave in Matlab,
> so it's apparent the executable is built to be linked to Octave.
> Maybe I don't understand the part "plugin interface that is not
> GPLed".  Is there any part of Octave's sources not covered by GPL?
> I think mex.h carries the GPL preamble, doesn't it?
>
>
>   
You but the point is that it is theoretically possible to build a single 
mex binary that can be used with both Octave and Matlab. In fact it is 
even possible to build a mex file without Octave or Matlab installed on 
the machine. So yes mex.h has a GPL license, but the API it defines is 
not specific to Octave.

D.


--
David Bateman                                address@hidden
35 rue Gambetta                              +33 1 46 04 02 18 (Home)
92100 Boulogne-Billancourt FRANCE            +33 6 72 01 06 33 (Mob)