octave-maintainers
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

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

Re: GPLv3


From: Thomas Weber
Subject: Re: GPLv3
Date: Fri, 12 Oct 2007 13:16:21 +0200

Am Freitag, den 12.10.2007, 12:54 +0200 schrieb Arno Onken:
> Thomas Weber wrote:
> > Am Freitag, den 12.10.2007, 11:36 +0200 schrieb David Bateman:
> >> Thomas Weber wrote:
> >>> GPLv2 and later should be fine, shouldn't it? Or are there GPL2-only
> >>> packages? 
> >>>
> >>> For other licenses, I don't know. But I'm not aware of any license that
> >>> was compatible with GPL2 and isn't with GPL3.
> >>>   
> >> The issue is no that we can't transition to a GPLv3 license. 
> > 
> >> Rather the
> >> issue that worries me is that the GPLv3 license states
> >>
> >> <quote>
> >> the Free Software Foundation; either version 3 of the License, or (at
> >> your option) any later version.
> >> </quote>
> >>
> >> So officially at the moment you use a GPLv2 toolbox with Octave 2.9.15
> >> you must effectively relicense it to be GPLv3. Can we assume this
> >> process is automatic, or should we explicitly change the license of all
> >> of the octave-forge code to avoid doubt...
> > 
> > If the toolbox is GPL2 only, you have a problem using it with a GPL3 (or
> > later) Octave. If it says "GPL2 or later", the relicensing process is
> > indeed automatic. 
> > 
> > Note that explicitely changing the license is practically not revertible
> > (you'd need any later contribution to be licensed again back for GPL2). 
> > 
> > I don't know if it's worth the effort, unless there's something in GPL3
> > which you need/like better than GPL2. For compatibility, "GPL2 or later"
> > is sufficient. 
> 
> However, when scripts will be moved from octave to octave-forge in the
> process of establishing the MATLAB-toolbox character in 3.1, many
> octave-forge packages will inevitably be GPLv3 anyway.

Depends. One could take them from an earlier date (I think most changes
are in the core).

That said, I personally dislike the idea of replicating Matlab's
toolboxes. Matlab needs them for an easier selling argument ('another
toolbox for just $$$'). I'd prefer Python's 'batteries included'
approach for Octave.

        Thomas





reply via email to

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