Re: Mathworks-hosted GPL'd software

[Aleksej Saushev]

  Hello!

Now this is becoming childish.

Thomas Weber <address@hidden> writes:

> On Fri, Feb 12, 2010 at 02:18:45AM +0300, Aleksej Saushev wrote:
>> 
>> If you're afraid that someone "steals" your code, you shouldn't release it
>> at the first place.
>> 
>> There's simple explanation why it happens so that BSD licensed code
>> receives more attention when it comes to maintainance. When you are paid
>> to do some work, what code can you reuse to save your time?
>> Obviously only the one that is free. "Free" as in "free," not as in "GPL," 
>> there's no "free" in "GPL." Thus we spend our time on source code
>> distributed under BSD and MIT/X terms rather than GNU terms, we talk
>> to original developers and maintainers and contribute to those projects.
>> 
>> There's very little point in "stealing" what is free. In the most frequent
>> case you can't add to it enough value so that you can redistribute it for
>> material return. The gain is negligible, if exists at all. Everyone just
>> goes and finds the same free code you started from. On the other hand
>> you give out bug fixes and other code you don't intend to maintain,
>> because all this maintainance takes your time.
>
> I'm eagerly waiting for a BSD-licensed interpreter of .m files with
> Octave's quality.  
>
> Shouldn't take too long, following your logic. After all, some of the
> libraries used by Octave are licensed under BSD, so there is a starting
> point.

Will you pay for the development?

What's the point in designing yet another interpreter for the language,
where you can easily use general-purpose one? Many people around follow
exactly that way. For examples you can look at the Python crowd.

This is the real reason why you don't see yet another interpreter.
It doesn't take so much effort to write arbitrary interpreter to a
well-specified language. For a professional programmer who was trained
in the field, I mean.


-- 
HE CE3OH...