2010/8/26 Jordi Gutiérrez Hermoso
<address@hidden>
On 26 August 2010 08:41, Giorgio Dall'Olmo <
address@hidden> wrote:
> The author of the code posts on his website the link to the asamin
> function, so I guess that he would be ok if there was also an octave
> version of it...
Maybe he would be, but his licensing terms say otherwise. The
advertising clauses in the license terms adds an additional
restriction that the GPL doesn't have. Perhaps he would be willing to
change or clarify his licensing terms. As you are no doubt aware,
Octave is distributed under the GPL and this means that any code that
gets distributed as part of Octave needs to be GPL compatible.
On a related note, if we're going after the pitchforks and torches, why hasn't octave-gpc been culled from octave-forge? The GPC issue is a greater offence because GPC is not even free software. 4-clause BSD is free software, it's just not GPL compatible. If we're going to allow octave-gpc to be distributed, don't we have to allow this, too?