Re: binary versions of functions

[Paul Kienzle]

On Oct 15, 2004, at 4:51 AM, Stefan van der Walt wrote:

> 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.

Not strictly true.  Your code has to be compatible with the GPL, which
is to say that it can assume a GPL license when it links to GPL code.
You can make your oct-file sources BSD or public domain (like we've
done with randmtzig.c) and use them as such in other contexts.

- Paul



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

Octave's home on the web:  http://www.octave.org
How to fund new projects:  http://www.octave.org/funding.html
Subscription information:  http://www.octave.org/archive.html
-------------------------------------------------------------