Hi,
Two document that is interesting to read:
http://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/lgpl-java.htmlhttp://www.gnu.org/licenses/why-not-lgpl.html
2008/9/30 Thomas Weber
<address@hidden>
Am Sonntag, den 28.09.2008, 01:55 -0700 schrieb dbateman:
> Frankly, for wider commercial acceptance of Octave I believe its necessary
> for Octave to define an API for compiled code that allows commercial
> distribution of the code. Never the binaries as they would link against
> liboctave and liboctinterp and so fall under the GPL of those libraries, but
> still an LGPL API to Octave would be greatly appreciated,
Such an interface would be a lawyer bomb; just imagine the linkage to
other libraries under GPL, that link with Octave (FFTW comes to my
mind).
Maybe it's possible, maybe it isnt; however, Sergei's hint about ALSA
made me aware of a different point. Say a company ships some commercial
code, built against a convenient-licensed API. Now, for whatever reason
(speed, bugs, ...), we change the API, incompatibly. What will happen?
I guess that the company will tell the customer to just stay with the
old version. That means 2.1.50 again, the version that just doesn't die.
Thomas
_______________________________________________
Help-octave mailing list
address@hidden
https://www-old.cae.wisc.edu/mailman/listinfo/help-octave
--
*****************************************
José Luis García Pallero
address@hidden(o<
/ / \
V_/_
Use Debian GNU/Linux and enjoy!
*****************************************