[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: binary versions of functions

From: Stefan van der Walt
Subject: Re: binary versions of functions
Date: Fri, 15 Oct 2004 10:51:31 +0200
User-agent: Mutt/1.5.6+20040722i

On Fri, Oct 15, 2004 at 09:59:23AM +0200, Michael Creel wrote:
> > > Turning your code into a C++ extension doesn't help.  Even assuming the
> > > m-file to C++ translators were far enough along for your purpose, the
> > > GPL requires that you distribute the source for any oct-file that you
> > > supply.
> >
> Is this really true? The simple act of distributing an oct file compiled 
> using 
> using mkoctfile means that the source code must be GPL'ed? Or any binary 
> compiled with gcc and distributed means the source must be GPL'ed? Or is the 
> issue what is #include -ed?
> M.

When you make an oct-file, you link to liboctave, which is GPL.  That
implies that your code has to be, too.


Octave is freely available under the terms of the GNU GPL.

Octave's home on the web:
How to fund new projects:
Subscription information:

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]