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. > > Søren > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------- > 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/
Alois still contributes on the octave mailing lists, so why not just let him respond and maybe clarify the license. D. ------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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
