Re: proposed FAQ entries about licensing

[Søren Hauberg]

fre, 27 03 2009 kl. 08:43 +0100, skrev Svante Signell:
> In order to commercialize it we will hand out most of the .m-files as
> GPL-ed code, but want to keep some essential .m-files protected. Of
> course this is mainly to be able to be able to sell the package and
> subsequently develop it further without risk of theft or cloning before
> we are established with our product.

>From what I understand the Matlab p-files can easily be reverse
engineered, so the amount of protection you would get that way is close
to zero. I also think you'll end up annoying your users more in this
way. So, using p-files (IMHO) has the effect of annoying users while not
preventing anybody from actually reading the code.

You could put some of your m-code under a non-commercial license. That
being said, I doubt you'll find much sympathy for such actions on this
list. A lot of people do a lot of volunteer work to ensure scientists
(and users in general) have Free access to the source code of Octave.
What you are requesting is a way of preventing us from reading your
code, while you get to read ours. I can understand your reasoning, but
it's really fair what you're asking for.

Soren