On 17 Mar 2010, at 19:44, Thomas Weber wrote:

> On 17/03/10 15:06 +0100, Carlo de Falco wrote:
>> Hi all,
>>
>> Probably due to the new licence restrictions at matlab central, the
>> nurbs toolbox has been removed
>> from the mathworks site. So I have been asked to keep the current
>> nurbs package from octave-forge
>> (which originated as a fork) compatible with matlab.
>> As I don't want to spend time maintaining 2 different versions, I'd
>> like to just make minimal changes to the current package but
>> I have a problem though with what to do with the copyright notice in
>> the package functions:
>>
>> 1) if I leave it at the top it will be displayed in place of the help
>> text in matlab
>> 2) the awk script in oct2mat moves the copyright notice to the end of
>> the file which I don't like
>> 3) if I join help and copyright text the full copyright text is shown
>> everytime user tyoes help <function>
>>
>> has anyone ever had to do the same? Is there a recommended way to  
>> deal
>> with this?
>
> Put a file COPYING into the the tarball and put something along the
> following at the end of the help text:
>
> Copyright (C) 2002 - 2009 XXX <[email protected]>
> This software comes with ABSOLUTELY NO WARRANTY; see the file
> COPYING for details.  This is free software, and you are welcome
> to distribute it under the conditions laid out in COPYING.

Shortening the copyright notice and adding it in the help seems  
reasonable,
but with the text you suggest if one file is distributed
separately from the package it looks like there is no way of  
determining the licensing terms...

I see 3 alternatives:

1) explicetely state the name of the licence (e.g. GPLv3) in the short  
copyright notice

2) state the name of the package from which the file was taken so that  
the user can
find the COPYING file even if she didn't get it with the code

3) add the full copyright notice in a second comment after the help  
text so that it is not displayed by 'help'

is there any reason to prefer one of these over the others?
If there is no particular objections to it I think I'll go with 3)

>       Thomas
c.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Download Intel&#174; Parallel Studio Eval
Try the new software tools for yourself. Speed compiling, find bugs
proactively, and fine-tune applications for parallel performance.
See why Intel Parallel Studio got high marks during beta.
http://p.sf.net/sfu/intel-sw-dev
_______________________________________________
Octave-dev mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/octave-dev

Reply via email to