Re: Matlab package manager

[David Bateman]

John W. Eaton wrote:
> On 13-Dec-2006, David Bateman wrote:
>
> | Søren Hauberg wrote:
> | 
> | > I don't if there is a need to relicense the code to a BSD license, but 
> | > if it's okay with John, it's okay with.
> | >   
> | I think the only contributors to pkg.m are you and I at the moment.
> | Therefore, we are free to BSD license this file. The question is would
> | John allow a BSD licensed file in the octave core, or would he force it
> | to be relicensed (which of course he can do used BSD) to GPL. If it is
> | relicensed as GPL it would force us to maintain a secondary repository
> | for pkg.m, and any contributions to pkg.m from others we'd have to
> | explicitly get permission to accept them in a BSD licensed file..
> | Therefore I'd prefer if pkg.m was BSD licensed in octave itself.
>
> Why do you think it needs a BSD style license?  Since the package
> manager is implemented entirely in interpreted scripts, it is not
> linked with anything, so simply running it in Matlab doesn't cause the
> two to be linked together in the usual sense that the GPL describes.
> But in any case, you could also dual license it if you like.
>
> jwe
>
>   
I'd like BSD license, since ideally if matlab takes the code and uses,
it would be the best solution to allow in the long run packages that
could be used in both matlab and octave...

D.

-- 
David Bateman                                address@hidden
Motorola Labs - Paris                        +33 1 69 35 48 04 (Ph) 
Parc Les Algorithmes, Commune de St Aubin    +33 6 72 01 06 33 (Mob) 
91193 Gif-Sur-Yvette FRANCE                  +33 1 69 35 77 01 (Fax) 

The information contained in this communication has been classified as: 

[x] General Business Information 
[ ] Motorola Internal Use Only 
[ ] Motorola Confidential Proprietary