[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
proposed FAQ entries about licensing
From: |
John W. Eaton |
Subject: |
proposed FAQ entries about licensing |
Date: |
Tue, 24 Mar 2009 13:30:18 -0400 |
Following this discussion:
https://www-old.cae.wisc.edu/pipermail/octave-maintainers/2009-January/010066.html
I asked the FSF about licensing for MEX. The results of the FSF
response to my question are the following proposed FAQ entries.
Q: If I write code using Octave do I have to release it under the
GPL?
A: The answer depends on precisely how the code is written and how it
works.
Code written entirely in the scripting language of Octave
(interpreted code in .m files) may be released under the terms of
whatever license you choose.
Code written using Octave's native plug-in interface (also known
as a .oct file) necessarily links with Octave internals and is
considered a derivative work of Octave and therefore must be
released under terms that are compatible with the GPL.
Code written using Octave's implementation of the Matlab MEX
interface may be released under the terms of whatever license you
choose, provided that the following conditions are met:
1. The plugin should not use any bindings that are specific to
Octave. In other words, the MEX file must use the MEX
interface only, and not also call on other Octave internals.
It should be possible in principle to use the MEX file with
other programs that implement the MEX interface (e.g., Matlab).
2. The MEX file should not be distributed together with Octave in
such a way that they effectively create a single work. For
example, you should not distribute the MEX file and Octave
together in a single package such that Octave automatically
loads and runs the MEX file when it starts up. There are other
possible ways that you might effectively create a single work;
this is just one example.
A program that embeds the Octave interpreter (e.g., by calling the
"octave_main" function), or that calls functions from Octave's
libraries (e.g., liboctinterp, liboctave, or libcruft) is
considered a derivative work of Octave and therefore must be
released under terms that are compatible with the GPL.
Q: Since the MEX interface allows plugins to be distributed under
terms that are incompatible with the GPL, does this mean that you
are encouraging people to to write non-free software for Octave?
A: No. The original reason for implementing the MEX interface for
Octave was to allow Octave to run free software that uses MEX
files (the particular goal was to run SundialsTB in Octave). The
intent was to liberate that software from Matlab and increase the
amount of free software available to Octave users, not to enable
people to write proprietary code for Octave. For the good of the
community, we strongly encourage users of Octave to release the
code they write for Octave under terms that are compatible with
the GPL.
Q: I wrote a program that links with Octave libraries and I don't
want to release it under the terms of the GPL. Will you change
the license of the Octave libraries for me?
A: No. Instead of asking us to change the licensing terms for
Octave, we recommend that you release your program under terms
that are compatible with the GPL so that the free software
community can benefit from your work the same as you have
benefitted from the work of all the people who have contributed to
Octave.
If you have comments, post them here.
Thanks,
jwe
- proposed FAQ entries about licensing,
John W. Eaton <=