This is a known problem with octave 3.2 that has been addressed during
development of octave 3.4. Hopefully the upcoming 3.4 release will fix this
for you.
--judd
On Wed, Jan 26, 2011 at 10:43 PM, Laurence Lurio wrote:
> I am running Octave, version 3.2.4, configured for "i686-pc-mingw32" and
HN is a technology news site related to the Y Combinator (a Silicon Valley
startup incubator). It may be a good idea to keep an eye on the discussion
there to keep it factual and possibly plug features of the upcoming release.
Nothing egregious yet.
http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2112273
--
There are a few outdated references to "help -i" on wiki.octave.org.
Can I have a password so I can fix them?
--judd
--
Learn how Oracle Real Application Clusters (RAC) One Node allows customers
to consolidate database s
On Sun, Sep 5, 2010 at 4:36 PM, c. wrote:
>
> I beleive this was done to comply with the new TMW ToS, but, as the
> uploader of the package is NOT the copyright holder,
> This is clearly in violation of the terms of GPL.
>
Unfortunately, my understanding is that only DM Splink (or his estate/or
s
On Mon, Aug 30, 2010 at 3:17 PM, David Bateman wrote:
> Well till they make the change in the ToU I believe the question is
> still in doubt from a legal point of view. However, if I'm ever sued,
> I'll contact you for the version of the mail with MathWorks tech support
> with the names to defend
On Sat, Aug 28, 2010 at 6:55 AM, Jaroslav Hajek wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 27, 2010 at 10:55 PM, Judd Storrs wrote:
> > Only the copyright holder can pursue infringement claims or modify
> > licensing.
>
> No.
I don't care what you think you know about the BSD licens
On Fri, Aug 27, 2010 at 5:10 PM, Martin Helm wrote:
>
> It does not state "and nothing else" which makes it possible to add
> restrictions, it contains no copyleft.
>
As a practical matter, merely modifying the license does not create of a
derivative work. Someone that only modified the license t
On Fri, Aug 27, 2010 at 4:15 PM, Jaroslav Hajek wrote:
> No, you don't. Neither you know whether someone replaced or modified
> the license in the sources.
>
Only the copyright holder can pursue infringement claims or modify
licensing. The BSD license does not transfer ownership neither does it
On Fri, Aug 27, 2010 at 3:41 PM, David Bateman wrote:
> I prepared a long answer to you, addressing each of your point
> individually, but decided not to send it. Frankly yes I understand the
> subtleties of the GPL, BSD license and the mathcentral ToS and I stand by my
> original mail
>
Honestl
On Fri, Aug 27, 2010 at 9:58 AM, Jaroslav Hajek wrote:
> Perhaps not, but it is what they say - see Terms of Use of Matlab
> Central. I think the risk is too great for a typical hacker/user to
> ignore, in spite of yours or anyone else's legal opinion about this.
> I'd say that software from Matl
On Fri, Aug 27, 2010 at 1:56 AM, David Bateman wrote:
> To me it makes sense to have to option of writing non GPLed code for Octave
> for those that have restrictions from their employers that constrain them
> from from releasing certain code to the general public and then allows these
> same empl
On Thu, Aug 26, 2010 at 4:50 PM, David Bateman wrote:
> The author of this package has been approached in the past about the
> compatibility of his code with the GPL and he had no desire to change his
> license or allow distribution.
>
That is unfortunate. Clearly, the author of the library expli
Sorry to be the hatchet man, but... I'll tear the band-aid quickly:
The following packages violate the licensing terms of the various octave
releases (GPLv2,3) and cannot be distributed even as source code.
GPC :: http://octave.sourceforge.net/gpc/index.html
spline-gcvspl :: http://octave.sourcef
2010/8/10 Jonathan Kimball
> Did the GPL issue affect the 3.0.1 build that was previously available for
> Octave, or v0.3.3 of jhandles?
It seems I wasn't clear, so sorry for the confusion. The GPL issue is why
older builds of Octave for Windows (3.0.x etc) were removed from
source-forge.
--j
2010/8/10 Jordi Gutiérrez Hermoso
> On 9 August 2010 01:33, Michael Goffioul
> wrote:
> > Due to GPL license violation claim, this package is no longer available.
>
> I just noticed that there is a packaging request for Debian for
> jhandles, and I *did* mean to get around to it.
>
> Is it impos
Here's another example:
Evil:
>> A = ones(5) ;
>> A(2,1) = 0 ;
>> A(5,5) = 0
A =
1 1 1 1 1
0 1 1 1 1
1 1 1 1 1
1 1 1 1 1
1 1 1 1 0
>> imerode(A,[0,0,0;1,1,1;0,0,0])
ans =
1 1 1
On Thu, Jun 24, 2010 at 9:52 AM, Søren Hauberg wrote:
> Could you send an example that illustrates the bug (including data) ?
Octave:
> imerode(ones(5),ones(3))
ans =
0 0 0 0 0
0 1 1 1 0
0 1 1 1 0
0 1 1 1 0
0 0 0 0 0
Evil:
>> imerode(ones
> $ octave -qf --eval "pkg load ocs" --persist
Interesting. It must be broken in Ubuntu. But it does work in lenny
for octave3.0. Yet another reason to not rely on ubuntu's packages for
octave. This is what happens for me on ubuntu:
$ octave3.0 -q --eval 'pkg list'
Package Name | Version | Insta
On Mon, May 24, 2010 at 3:00 PM, c. wrote:
> I tried the same test on my system and the number I see are consistent
> with yours.
Do you mind if I ask how you did this? I've been trying but the timing
differences I find seem to be due to execution of the RC files not due
to directory structure. s
On Mon, May 24, 2010 at 2:12 PM, Thomas Weber wrote:
> With quite some octave-forge packages installed (actually, all that are
> in Debian currently; v.m contains just an exit; command);
>
> $ time octave v.m
>
>
> real 0m2.820s
> user 0m2.168s
> sys 0m0.112s
>
> without any packages:
>
On Mon, May 17, 2010 at 11:11 AM, Judd Storrs wrote:
> I think the opposition is that your proposing rewriting octave code
> for the sole purpose of compatibility with a translator that targets
> octave.
I meant "targets Matlab&qu
On Mon, May 17, 2010 at 10:26 AM, Alois Schlögl
wrote:
> However, if there is no agreement that having
> "free toolboxes for matlab" is a worthwhile goal, it would expect similar
> opposition than trying to make the source code compatible.
I think the opposition is that your proposing rewriting o
On Fri, May 7, 2010 at 3:38 PM, Alois Schlögl wrote:
> - while ninner++ < maxinner
> + while ninner < maxinner
> + ninner = ninner + 1;
If this is a problem that oct2mat cannot handle, possibly the octave
language is just ill-suited to simple awk-based transformations?
If we stick strictly
eOn Tue, May 4, 2010 at 12:35 PM, Søren Hauberg wrote:
> tir, 04 05 2010 kl. 09:01 +0100, skrev Andy Buckle:
>> I don't think image is the correct package for it. I realise that
>> matlab has the functions in its image processing toolbox. However,
>> dicom does mauch more that store images. My cur
On Tue, May 4, 2010 at 5:05 AM, Andy Buckle wrote:
> follows from:
> http://octave.1599824.n4.nabble.com/dicom-support-tt2122699.html#a2122699
>
> Following from my comment on storing the dicom dictionary. I tried a
> few options;
One of the issues is that if we want full M compatibility with
di
On Wed, Apr 28, 2010 at 1:31 PM, Søren Hauberg wrote:
> Based on this discussion, we are now using option 1. (but if there are
> doubts I'll change it back, just to be certain)
My doubt was whether you were being asked to additionally assert
compliance with any additional US export restrictions.
Søren,
Is this the entirety of the text that the checkbox carries or was this
just a portion you were unsure about?
On Sun, Apr 18, 2010 at 3:59 AM, Søren Hauberg wrote:
>This project does NOT incorporate, access, call upon, or
>otherwise use encryption of any kind, including, bu
On Wed, Apr 28, 2010 at 12:25 PM, Carnë Draug wrote:
> On 28 April 2010 12:23, David Bateman wrote:
>> Errr, except that there exists the concept of reexportation. If Octave is
>> deemed as a projet to reside in the US (and I'd say that it does),
>> reexportation in contravention of the export co
On Wed, Apr 28, 2010 at 12:41 PM, David Bateman wrote:
> I've never had to export to one of these six countries so don't know the
> details, but I suspect they block almost everything... Perhaps some things
> exported under the US ECCN EAR99 might pass but I can't be sure, not having
> done it in
On Wed, Apr 28, 2010 at 11:20 AM, Carnë Draug wrote:
> I am not spreading misinformation. David said it himself, that it's
> only the USA who blocks these countries.
I don't think you understood David's response, then. Apparently, the
US does *not* have a blanket ban on all software export to tho
On Tue, Apr 27, 2010 at 11:11 PM, Carnë Draug wrote:
> Since the USA seems to be the only country to have this rule there
> would be plenty of getting around.
Please read David's responses and stop spreading baseless
misinformation. The laws seem to be fairly uniform throughout the
world by inter
I would try to stick with the templates from
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-howto.html
How about something like this:
% HELP TEXT/DOCUMENTATION
%
%This program is free software: you can redistribute it and/or modify
%it under the terms of the GNU General Public License as published by
%
On Fri, Mar 5, 2010 at 1:36 AM, Søren Hauberg wrote:
> 2. It would be nice if the help text more clear explains what a
>'phantom' is. Personally, I don't know what it is.
FYI,
A "phantom" is basically a non-human object used to assess image
reconstruction quality in medical imaging.
On Wed, Dec 16, 2009 at 2:44 PM, Søren Hauberg wrote:
> ons, 16 12 2009 kl. 14:16 -0500, skrev Judd Storrs:
>> Just playing devils advocate here for a bit.
>
> :-) Then I'll ask some stupid questions (because I actually don't know
> the answer...)
Sure, however, I
Just playing devils advocate here for a bit. Here are some features
that I like when I hit a forum that seem to be missing from
nabble/mailing lists with search.
* Sticky posts i.e. dedicated threads that hang around. For a while
there was a lot of trouble compiling octave on ubuntu and it really
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 distributed need not
include anything that is normally distributed (in ei
On Mon, Apr 20, 2009 at 5:27 PM, John W. Eaton wrote:
> I don't see a statement saying that it is strictly GPLv2. Yes, he
> says GPLv2, but he doesn't say that there is no possibility to use a
> later version if you wish.
I was going off of the COPYING file and his repeated specific demands to
The CLN website links to the GPLv3, but COPYING inside the latest CLN
package lists the license as GPLv2 only. In thread that was linked to, the
CLN author states that the CLN license is GPLv2 (only).
http://www.ginac.de/pipermail/cln-list/2009-April/000506.html
GPLv2 is incompatible with GPLv3.
38 matches
Mail list logo
