On Mon, Apr 20, 2009 at 2:22 PM, Kustaa Nyholm
<kustaa.nyh...@planmeca.com>wrote:
> I am very much in favor of getting an opinion from licens...@fsf.org,
> who's going to do it?
I will. Question: Would people rather have octave-dev and CLN-list on the
CC list of my e-mail to the FSF, or should I just post their response?
The CLN developer's explanation is available here:
http://www.cebix.net/pipermail/cln-list/2009-April/000506.html
I disagree with their analysis, but it is reasoned and they raise specific
issues. I think it's a good idea to ask the FSF for an opinion.
(Specifically, the CLN folks claim that an executable installer is an
executable and needs to have all its source code available. I agree with
others who think the argument is a bit pedantic when applied to installers,
since a .zip containing vcredist_x86.exe and an Octave installer that runs
vcredist_x86.exe would defeat the argument. The CLN folks even indicate they
think it's a bit pedantic but insist on adherence to the letter of the law.
Their desire is to improve libstdc++ rather than package VC++, though that's
not pertinent to the question of what the license does or doesn't allow.)
Joe V.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Stay on top of everything new and different, both inside and
around Java (TM) technology - register by April 22, and save
$200 on the JavaOne (SM) conference, June 2-5, 2009, San Francisco.
300 plus technical and hands-on sessions. Register today.
Use priority code J9JMT32. http://p.sf.net/sfu/p
_______________________________________________
Octave-dev mailing list
Octave-dev@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/octave-dev
