On Tue, Apr 21, 2009 at 6:12 PM, Alois Schlögl wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
>
> As some of you might know, my other pet project besides Octave, is
> BioSig http://biosig.sf.net. BioSig is designed in such a way that it
> can be used with both, Matlab and Octave. Mostl
On Tue, Apr 21, 2009 at 10:34 PM, Kustaa Nyholm
wrote:
>>> I hope I did not talk about any compiler, that was not my intention. I was
>>> just saying that this GPLv2 clearly states that a compiler can be a major
>>> component of a system.
>>>
>>
>>Yes, it can - for instance the unix and cc. But I
ons, 22 04 2009 kl. 00:31 +0200, skrev David Bateman:
> > 2) Coding style:
> > Octave understands a superset of commands compared to matlab, and it
> > seems the current policy is to enforce the "octave style" and make the
> > use of toolboxes incompatible for a use with Matlab. Is not it sensible
Alois Schlögl wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
>
> As some of you might know, my other pet project besides Octave, is
> BioSig http://biosig.sf.net. BioSig is designed in such a way that it
> can be used with both, Matlab and Octave. Mostly for performance reason,
> we can
On Tue, Apr 21, 2009 at 05:02:20PM +0200, David Bateman wrote:
> Michael Goffioul wrote:
> > Just for the record, looking at the answer here
> >
> > http://www.ginac.de/pipermail/cln-list/2009-April/000513.html
> >
> > this guy won't stop at GiNaC/CLN. And he claims this is still
> > valid for GPLv
David Bateman wrote:
>Stephen Montgomery-Smith wrote:
>> This is my feeling on the matter.
>>
>> The original post suggests that it is the CLN developer who requested
>> that their software not be bundled with VC++ libraries. I think we
>> should respect their wishes.
I'm all for respecting t
>> I hope I did not talk about any compiler, that was not my intention. I was
>> just saying that this GPLv2 clearly states that a compiler can be a major
>> component of a system.
>>
>
>Yes, it can - for instance the unix and cc. But I don't think this
>applies to MSVC++ and Windows.
I'm not agree
Stephen Montgomery-Smith wrote:
> This is my feeling on the matter.
>
> The original post suggests that it is the CLN developer who requested
> that their software not be bundled with VC++ libraries. I think we
> should respect their wishes. If we exclude their software from the
> bundle, we a
This is my feeling on the matter.
The original post suggests that it is the CLN developer who requested
that their software not be bundled with VC++ libraries. I think we
should respect their wishes. If we exclude their software from the
bundle, we are not taking a legal position, or saying t
On Tue, Apr 21, 2009 at 8:40 PM, Kustaa Nyholm
wrote:
>
>>Clarifying is not the same as exemplifying. Exemplifying means to provide
>>*examples*.
> So? At least to me an example clarifies a lot in most cases. Without the
> example that
> a compiler is a component of an operating system I would n
>Clarifying is not the same as exemplifying. Exemplifying means to provide
>*examples*.
So? At least to me an example clarifies a lot in most cases. Without the
example that
a compiler is a component of an operating system I would never have thought of
that.
>> So as far as GPLv2 is concerned
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
As some of you might know, my other pet project besides Octave, is
BioSig http://biosig.sf.net. BioSig is designed in such a way that it
can be used with both, Matlab and Octave. Mostly for performance reason,
we cannot abandon support for Matlab [1,2
Dear FSF licensing experts,
Is it a violation of the GPL (v2 and v3) to bundle the Visual C++
redistributable libraries and GPLed libraries in a single executable
installer? I have already read the GPL FAQ
(http://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/gpl-faq.html#WindowsRuntimeAndGPL),
which states tha
On Mon, Apr 20, 2009 at 5:04 PM, John W. Eaton wrote:
> On 20-Apr-2009, Judd Storrs wrote:
>
> A more important question is whether redistribution of the libraries
> is allowed by Microsoft. The blanket statement on the MS web site is
>
> [snip]
>
> So does the license agreement that accompanie
Michael Goffioul wrote:
> Just for the record, looking at the answer here
>
> http://www.ginac.de/pipermail/cln-list/2009-April/000513.html
>
> this guy won't stop at GiNaC/CLN. And he claims this is still
> valid for GPLv3.
>
> Michael.
>
>
From the thread the CLN author states he contacted li
On Tue, Apr 21, 2009 at 2:29 PM, Kustaa Nyholm
wrote:
>>> > From GPL2:
"However, as a special exception, the source code distributed need not
include anything that is normally distributed (in either source or
binary form) with the major components (compiler, kernel, and so on)
>> > From GPL2:
>>> "However, as a special exception, the source code distributed need not
>>> include anything that is normally distributed (in either source or
>>> binary form) with the major components (compiler, kernel, and so on)
>>> of the operating system on which the executable runs, unles
On Tue, Apr 21, 2009 at 1:21 PM, Kustaa Nyholm
wrote:
> > From GPL2:
>> "However, as a special exception, the source code distributed need not
>> include anything that is normally distributed (in either source or
>> binary form) with the major components (compiler, kernel, and so on)
>> of the op
> From GPL2:
> "However, as a special exception, the source code distributed need not
> include anything that is normally distributed (in either source or
> binary form) with the major components (compiler, kernel, and so on)
> of the operating system on which the executable runs, unless that
> co
On Tue, Apr 21, 2009 at 11:52 AM, Jaroslav Hajek wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 21, 2009 at 11:16 AM, Michael Goffioul
> wrote:
>> On Mon, Apr 20, 2009 at 10:51 PM, Judd Storrs wrote:
>>> On Mon, Apr 20, 2009 at 5:04 PM, John W. Eaton wrote:
Does the FAQ answer specifically say that you are not
On Tue, Apr 21, 2009 at 12:09 PM, Kustaa Nyholm
wrote:
>> It seems that GPLv2 is more strict and forbids the distribution, while
>> GPLv3 allows it.
> I agree with that GPLv3 allows it but where do you read the GPLv2 does not
> allow it / or forbids it?
>
> br Kusti
>
>
>From GPL2:
"However, as a
> It seems that GPLv2 is more strict and forbids the distribution, while
> GPLv3 allows it.
I agree with that GPLv3 allows it but where do you read the GPLv2 does not
allow it / or forbids it?
br Kusti
--
Stay on top of
On Tue, Apr 21, 2009 at 11:16 AM, Michael Goffioul
wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 20, 2009 at 10:51 PM, Judd Storrs wrote:
>> On Mon, Apr 20, 2009 at 5:04 PM, John W. Eaton wrote:
>>>
>>> Does the FAQ answer specifically say that you are not allowed to
>>> distribute them together?
>>
>> GPLv2 section 3 d
On Mon, Apr 20, 2009 at 10:51 PM, Judd Storrs wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 20, 2009 at 5:04 PM, John W. Eaton wrote:
>>
>> Does the FAQ answer specifically say that you are not allowed to
>> distribute them together?
>
> GPLv2 section 3 does:
>
> "However, as a special exception, the source code distribu
tir, 21 04 2009 kl. 09:35 +0100, skrev Michael Goffioul:
> To be honest, I'm pissed off by all these licensing stuffs.
> I won't make any new Windows/VC++ release and I'll stop
> supporting compiling octave with VC++.
I can't really say I blame you for being pissed. All this legal stuff
can just b
On Mon, Apr 20, 2009 at 10:04 PM, John W. Eaton wrote:
> FWIW, I would prefer it if the primary Octave binaries for Windows
> were built with MinGW. That way we wouldn't have these problems. But
> if you (Michael) want to distribute binaries built with VC++, then
> wouldn't it be better to stop
26 matches
Mail list logo
