|
From: | Felipe G. Nievinski |
Subject: | Re: Octave FAQ update about GPL |
Date: | Thu, 13 Feb 2014 09:50:27 -0200 |
On 02/12/2014 05:23 PM, 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.
-F.
...[Label: using the Octave interpreter]
* Code written entirely in the scripting language of Octave (interpreted
code in .m files), that invokes only language keywords (such as "if",
"switch", etc): code may be released under the terms of whatever license you
choose.
- Source: <http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#IfInterpreterIsGPL>,
paragraph 1.
I suggest that you take a different approach here. I know (at least some of) the people at the FSF who might help us with these issues. I expect that it will be much easier for them to help us if we ask these questions in a different way. Instead of writing FAQ entries and asking them to comment on or approve them, it would probably be better to look for two or three specific things that you want to clarify and ask specific questions about those cases using specific examples. In
other words, a question like this:
I have a program that works this way: .... Does that mean it has to be released under the terms of the GPL? I've looked at the FAQ and the answers to the questions A, B, and C seem to be related to this question, but don't seem to apply exactly. My case seems different in this way: ..., and that's confusing me because of ....
[Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread] |