[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: Is this copyright/license agreement Octave-compatible

From: Josh Rigler
Subject: Re: Is this copyright/license agreement Octave-compatible
Date: Sun, 18 Nov 2007 08:52:48 -0700
User-agent: Thunderbird (Windows/20071031)

Jordi GutiƩrrez Hermoso wrote:
On 16/11/2007, Josh Rigler <address@hidden> wrote:
   This software may be copied or redistributed as long as it is
   not sold for profit,

This is enough to make it (slightly) non-free, certainly GPL
incompatible and even unsuitable for inclusion with Octave.

It doesn't matter that they allow you to charge for it if you combine
it with another "substantive" project, whatever the hell that means.
It adds a restriction the GPL doesn't e.g. someone could want to take
out this code from Octave and sell it on its own, admittedly a weird
scenario, but still one that the GPL itself doesn't forbid.

I concur that the best solution is to ask for a relicensing.

I suppose I was inclined to read the entire license, which seemed, as I read it, to negate the single line you quoted above. I also applied my own interpretation of the term 'substantive product'. In retrospect, neither of these is probably a very legally sound way to do things.

Seeing as the text provided at the start of this thread constitutes their attempt to address issues brought up by JWE over six years ago, even after I suggested the NetCDF license to them as a template, and even after they received pressure from other scientists in the space physics research community (the primary user of CDF software) to change their license to something that was GPL compatible, I'm just not willing to pursue this any further by requesting (again) a relicensing of the CDF software.

Thanks for the feedback.


reply via email to

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