On 8 Nov 2011, at 15:41, Michele Martone wrote:

> As far as I know, LGPL is more appropriate for libraries, while GPL for full
> programs.
> For this reason, the "librsb" source archives can be distributed separately
> under the LGPL (it's slightly more permissive than GPL, as far as I
> understand).

that should be fine.

> Now, the "sparsersb" archive actually contains sources for the OCT-function
> only.
> However for technical reasons (so far, "sparsersb" links to "librsb"
> statically), it may arise the need for packaging "sparsersb" with the
> "librsb" sources, all in one file; in such a case maybe LGPL would be the
> right choice.

I think keeping the library separated from the octave bindings, as it is now, 
is the best approach as the library can be useful by itself for people who do 
not use octave at all.

if the library is distributed as LGPL it is ok for an oct-file to link to it.

> By analogy to the various third party libraries distributed "verbatim" in 
> Octave, I see that if their
> licensing is more liberal (e.g.: BSD/LGPLv3) it's also OK, right ?

Stuff distributed along with Octave itself MUST have a GPL compatible license 
(this includes some versions of BSD and LGPL).

Octave-Forge is a bit less restrictive: although not encouraged, it is possible 
to distribute non-free packages.
Nonetheless any file that uses the Octave API directly (e.g. that includes 
octave/oct.h) is to be considered "derivative work"
of Octave and therefore must be licensed as GPLv3.

If you search the email archives you will find other threads that discuss this 
extensively, 
anyway it seems the approach you are taking right now (a separate library 
distributed as LGPL + an octave-forge package as GPL) is OK.

c.



------------------------------------------------------------------------------
RSA(R) Conference 2012
Save $700 by Nov 18
Register now
http://p.sf.net/sfu/rsa-sfdev2dev1
_______________________________________________
Octave-dev mailing list
Octave-dev@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/octave-dev

Reply via email to