This is my feeling on the matter. The original post suggests that it is the CLN developer who requested that their software not be bundled with VC++ libraries. I think we should respect their wishes. If we exclude their software from the bundle, we are not taking a legal position, or saying that we agree with the developer. We are merely graciously agreeing to the developer's wishes.
I personally disagree with the CLN developer, and I think that their position on this matter hurts them, and hurts the open-source movement as a whole. But that is not my call to make. If the license clearly allowed the CLN binaries to be bundled with VC++ libraries, then I think we would be in a good place to go against the wishes of the CLN developer. But given that reasonable people can disagree with the interpretation, and in the absence of any arbitrating ruling, I think we need to give in to the CLN developer's request. I think the only recourse is to politely ask the CLN developer to change his mind. But if he/she doesn't, we should live with it. Stephen ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Stay on top of everything new and different, both inside and around Java (TM) technology - register by April 22, and save $200 on the JavaOne (SM) conference, June 2-5, 2009, San Francisco. 300 plus technical and hands-on sessions. Register today. Use priority code J9JMT32. http://p.sf.net/sfu/p _______________________________________________ Octave-dev mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/octave-dev
