2011/11/11 Carnë Draug :
> Hi Henrik
>
> It seems that your package can't be GPL because it's linking octave
> with non-free software. I'm not sure we can include it at the moment.
> I'll try to figure it out first. Would be nice if someone with more
> knowledged on this legal issues could join in.
I don't know if this is the appropriate place to ask for this, but it would be
quite helpful that the web pages of functions in Octave-Forge would have at
some place the name of the package that contains them. I know that the URL
contains it, but that is if you know how URLs are built.
For exam
2011/11/17 Henrik Alsing Friberg :
> 2011/11/11 Carnë Draug :
>> Hi Henrik
>>
>> It seems that your package can't be GPL because it's linking octave
>> with non-free software. I'm not sure we can include it at the moment.
>> I'll try to figure it out first. Would be nice if someone with more
>> kno
2011/11/17 Henrik Alsing Friberg :
> With respect to legal matters of the OctMOSEK package, I can assure
> you that everything is in order. OctMOSEK will be distributed under
> the Lesser GPL license, with explicit permissions from the copyright
> holder (me) to allow dependence on the GPL-incompat
On 17 Nov 2011, at 11:51, Miguel Rubio-Roy wrote:
> I don't know if this is the appropriate place to ask for this, but it would
> be quite helpful that the web pages of functions in Octave-Forge would have
> at some place the name of the package that contains them. I know that the URL
> contai
On Thu, Nov 17, 2011 at 01:02:20PM +0100, Henrik Alsing Friberg wrote:
> 2011/11/11 Carnë Draug :
> > Hi Henrik
> >
> > It seems that your package can't be GPL because it's linking octave
> > with non-free software. I'm not sure we can include it at the moment.
> > I'll try to figure it out first.
Hello.
This is in relation to the discussion below:
http://sourceforge.net/mailarchive/forum.php?thread_name=CAPHS2gwmxJGF9Cy8%3DSEGasQcVRg_Lqu-ndCdVhO-r1LJsRQGuA%40mail.gmail.com&forum_name=octave-dev
If this is the wrong place to discuss this issue, I would be thankful
for a redirection t
Hi everyone,
for those who are not aware of it, there's currently a "non-free"
section in octave-forge for packages that are: under a non-free
license themselves, or that link to non-free libraries. Currently we
have 2 packages in that section (spline-gsvspl and gpc) and last week
a new submission
Hi,
Carnë Draug writes:
> A new version of the linear-algebra package was released during the
> weekend (you probably never received the e-mail announcing it since
> the mailing list was not working).
There is a minor problem in the build system of the package: the files
src/pgmres.{o,oct} are
I agree with the position that the GPL projects should not contain any software
which requires a non-GPL component.
The producers of the non-GPL software can and are using the GPL software as 1)
a bug report system, 2) free advertising, and 3) a free support group. These
undermine the core prin
Carnë,
I with you. There is only one way, that allows to be part of both, the
Free and the proprietary worlds of software - its called "dual licensing".
If dual licensing is not acceptable to them, they have already decided
that they do not want to be part of the community. And there is no reason
tor, 17 11 2011 kl. 19:35 +, skrev Carnë Draug:
> My personal opinion is to remove the non-free section.
I agree with you on this point. We should not be encouraging the use of
non-free libraries. Consider the situation where a package depends on
another package that in turn depends on a non-f
On 17 Nov 2011, at 21:06, Sébastien Villemot wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Carnë Draug writes:
>
>> A new version of the linear-algebra package was released during the
>> weekend (you probably never received the e-mail announcing it since
>> the mailing list was not working).
>
> There is a minor problem
If I understand correctly, the idea here is that including a wrapper
that allows a user to access non-free software is somehow a bad thing.
However, if you don't allow the wrapper users are NOT able to access the
non-free software. This seems to infringe on the user's right to choose
and the
On 2017@13:44, Robert T. Short wrote:
>
> If I understand correctly, the idea here is that including a wrapper
> that allows a user to access non-free software is somehow a bad thing.
> However, if you don't allow the wrapper users are NOT able to access the
> non-
On 17 November 2011 21:58, c. wrote:
> On 17 Nov 2011, at 21:06, Sébastien Villemot wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> Carnë Draug writes:
>>
>>> A new version of the linear-algebra package was released during the
>>> weekend (you probably never received the e-mail announcing it since
>>> the mailing list was n
"c." writes:
> On 17 Nov 2011, at 21:06, Sébastien Villemot wrote:
>> Carnë Draug writes:
>>
>>> A new version of the linear-algebra package was released during the
>>> weekend (you probably never received the e-mail announcing it since
>>> the mailing list was not working).
>>
>> There is a mi
17 matches
Mail list logo
