Re: calling octave from C

[David Grundberg]

Judd Storrs skrev:
> On Fri, Nov 20, 2009 at 3:58 PM, Jaroslav Hajek <address@hidden> wrote:
>   
> > No, surely not. The m-file is just being passed through, it doesn't "know"
> > anything about the bindings.
> >     
>
> I'm not sure what you mean by "know" and really what that has to do
> with the GPL.
>
> Both interpreters are combined to the same executable--you have a
> black box with two streams of input data. On the one side you have the
> octave interpreter reading m-files. On the other side you have the
> python interpreter reading python files. My question is how
> specifically you can distinguish between the two streams such that
> different licensing conditions are applied to the two streams. If you
> can't explain why one stream is different from the other, you can't
> have it both ways. It's all or nothing.
>
>
> --judd
>   

You are confusing the interpreter situation with the 
script-calling-script situation.

You are also oversimplifying the situation. Let's consider a situation 
where the Python interpreter and Octave interpreter are combined into 
one executable, even if this is not the case. Then yes, both .py and .m 
files would be treated as data and would not need to abide the 
interpreter's GPL license. But if one of the py or m files is GPL, then 
you have to GPL all py and m files. (If you want to distribute it)

Now let's see what we have. We have .py files. If you use a GPL'd 
py-file from one of your py-files, then you have to abide the GPL. The 
situation is analogous with m-files. If you use a GPL'd m-file from one 
of your m-files, then you are deriving the first m-file and have to 
abide the GPL. If this weren't so, GPL would be essentially ineffective 
in Python scripts, m-files or any other interpretive environment.

Also, you have to recognize that the characteristics of the interpreter 
does not matter. Otherwise somebody would be able to create a rogue 
interpreter/compiler under some other license and make use of GPL'd 
script files with no consequences, distributing them bundled with 
proprietary scripts. Clearly that is absurd.

With Pytave, we have on the one side py-files, which I argue must abide 
the GPL. One the other side we have m-files, which are treated as data 
to the Octave interpreter.

So since Pytave is a py-file all py files using it must abide the GPL. 
(script-to-script situation)

But the m-files are interpreted, so they are treated as data. 
(interpreter situation) But if one of the m-files are GPL, then it is 
the script-to-script situation again, and you have to make sure all 
m-files abide the GPL.

David