Michael Goffioul wrote: > On Mon, Dec 8, 2008 at 1:06 PM, Jaroslav Hajek <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > > Why not? There is no problem writing an interface to a proprietary > > library, provided that the interface itself will be GPL'ed. > > Writing such an interface certainly does not make the library a > > derivative work of Octave :) > > If the interface is an oct-file (hence linked against octave libraries), > then I think the interface, as well as the library, must be licensed > under GPL. We had the kind of discussion before, and I think that > GPLv3 is very explicit about this. Even distributing in source-form > only is not valid.
Jaroslav's point is central and correct: two independent pieces of software don't become mutually derived works just because someone writes an interface between them. The interface is derived from both, and must have a license compatible with both. Because MOSEK afaik imposes no licensing requirements, the GPL suffices. The GPL FAQ says, "If you want your program to link against a library not covered by the system library exception, you need to provide permission to do that." So, provide permission. Problem solved. > The only answer to this is to use a MEX > interface and pretend it is designed for the other brand. No. The GPL doesn't define "link" so specifically. There's no technical workaround, no kind of linking that's OK while another isn't. Thankfully, no such distinction is needed, because no problem exists. HTH. --jkl ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ SF.Net email is Sponsored by MIX09, March 18-20, 2009 in Las Vegas, Nevada. The future of the web can't happen without you. Join us at MIX09 to help pave the way to the Next Web now. Learn more and register at http://ad.doubleclick.net/clk;208669438;13503038;i?http://2009.visitmix.com/ _______________________________________________ Octave-dev mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/octave-dev
