Re: Octave Forge: Package groups and properties defined, RFC.

[Julien Bect]

Le 09/03/2017 à 10:43, Julien Bect a écrit :
> Ok, sure... I was only trying to provide a practical way for people to 
> know what kind of licence is acceptable or not...
>
> To remain closer to the FSF view of things, we can use their list [1] 
> instead.
>
>
> If I understand previous messages correctly, this should be acceptable :
>
> a) "GPL-compatible licences" [2] for 1) community packages, or 2) 
> external packages that link directly to Octave (oct-files or mex-files).
>
> b) "GPL-compatible licences" [2] or "GPL-incompatible" [3] for pure 
> m-file external packages.
>
> c) "Nonfree" -> not accepted.

Let me amend this proposal : in a), we should probably consider the 
subset of licences that are compatible with GPLv3+.

The list [2] makes it clear in each case if there is a difference betwen 
GPLv2 and GPLv3.

> [1] https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html
> [2] https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html#GPLCompatibleLicenses
> [3] 
> https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html#GPLIncompatibleLicenses
> [4] 
> https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html#NonFreeSoftwareLicenses