On 28/mag/08, at 20:17, Søren Hauberg wrote: > ons, 28 05 2008 kl. 20:25 +0200, skrev Thomas Weber: >> DESCRIPTION and contents.m say GPL2 or later, however the majority of >> .m files in inst/ say LGPL2 or later. >> >> So, which one is it? >> Bonus points if we can agree on just one license :) > > Hmmm, I don't know... The 'License' field in the DESCRIPTION file > is not > mandatory. It's just there to give a quick license overview. We could > change the text in DESCRIPTION to "GPL v2 or later, and LGPL v2 or > later". We could also change the license of the LGPL m-files to GPL -- > how would it be possible for anybody to link to a script file > anyway? I > don't think we should change LGPL C++ files to GPL, as that would go > against the wishes of whoever released the code as LGPL.
To my understanding, if these C++ files link to liboctave linking to the binaries produced from such files would mean linking to liboctave which is GPL, therefore distributing them under LGPL doesn't make much sense anyway... > Søren c. ------------------------------------------------------------------------- This SF.net email is sponsored by: Microsoft Defy all challenges. Microsoft(R) Visual Studio 2008. http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/vse0120000070mrt/direct/01/ _______________________________________________ Octave-dev mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/octave-dev
