Re: about Octave's syntax

[Jaroslav Hajek]

2009/7/2 Sergei Steshenko <address@hidden>:
>
>
>
> --- On Thu, 7/2/09, Jaroslav Hajek <address@hidden> wrote:
>
>> From: Jaroslav Hajek <address@hidden>
>> Subject: Re: about Octave's syntax
>> To: "Sergei Steshenko" <address@hidden>
>> Cc: "Søren Hauberg" <address@hidden>, "Eduardo Alejandro Cuesta Llanes" 
>> <address@hidden>, address@hidden
>> Date: Thursday, July 2, 2009, 1:43 AM
>> On Thu, Jul 2, 2009 at 10:29 AM,
>
> [snip]
>
>> IIRC, the license issues of BSD vs. GPL are fairly clear
>> and well
>> documented. A derivative work combining GPL and BSD must be
>> under GPL.
>> If you don't like it, don't make a derivative work - there
>> are plenty
>> of options.
>
> [snip]
>
>>
>> Obviously, most of the Octave language was derived from
>> Matlab. I
>> don't think the formal grammar for the latter was ever
>> published.
>>
>> --
>> RNDr. Jaroslav Hajek
>> computing expert & GNU Octave developer
>> Aeronautical Research and Test Institute (VZLU)
>> Prague, Czech Republic
>> url: www.highegg.matfyz.cz
>>
>
> Sp, do I understand you correctly:
>
> 1) 'octave' is a derived work of 'matlab' - because of the language;

No.

> 2) anything that uses 'octave' syntax is a derived work of 'octave', and
> thus should be released under GPL ?

No.

Please read the GPL text to find out what constitutes a derivative work.

>
> :-).
>
> That was my point - the OP maybe wanted in no way his work to be considered
> to be derived works of 'ocatave'.
>

GPL is (relatively) clear about what derivative works are, and using a
GPL software means agreeing with GPL. It's not really relevant what
the OP (or anyone else) wants, beyond the point that he can choose to
not use the software at all (which is only logical when one disagrees
with software license).

-- 
RNDr. Jaroslav Hajek
computing expert & GNU Octave developer
Aeronautical Research and Test Institute (VZLU)
Prague, Czech Republic
url: www.highegg.matfyz.cz