Re: Octave FAQ update about GPL

[fgnievinski]

On Thu, Feb 13, 2014 at 5:34 AM, Mike Miller [via Octave] <[hidden email]> wrote:

On Wed, Feb 12, 2014 at 14:23:45 -0800, fgnievinski wrote:
> Here it is.  Please don't get too annoyed by the verbosity -- there's some
> redundancy, so that each usage case can be deemed true/false independently
> from the others.  I'll wait for your okay, comments, changes before bugging
> licensing at FSF.  I'll send in a separate message a discussion which I
> think is too esoteric for the FSF folks.

I've commented on each of the cases below. In general, I think you should start from the default position asserted in the Octave FAQ, that any m-file may be distributed under the terms of any license of the author's choosing.

Thanks for your comments and modifications.  I've incorporated them, though in the format suggested by John.  Please see msg to follow.

-F.

---

View this message in context: Re: Octave FAQ update about GPL
Sent from the Octave - Maintainers mailing list archive at Nabble.com.