Re: [OctDev] Re: new release

[Paul K. <pki...@us...>]

On Jan 12, 2006, at 9:22 AM, Quentin Spencer wrote:

> John W. Eaton wrote:
>
>> On 29-Dec-2005, David Bateman wrote:
>>
>> | > I think decrufting and supporting older versions of octave at the 
>> same | > time is not practical, so I'm arguing for a clean break.
>>
>> Sorry, I was traveling for a week, then out of commission with some
>> flu-like thing, then traveling again.  I have a backlog of patches
>> (including the code for the package system) that I will try to work
>> through as soon as possible.
>>
>
> While we're still discussing a new release sometime soon, I'd like to 
> repeat a request I made a while ago. Can we remove the nonfree 
> directory from octave-forge and make it a separate package? Even 
> though it's not installed by default, I am required to use a modified 
> version of the source package to comply with Fedora Extras policies. 
> When I brought this up before, I believe the Debian maintainer said 
> they should technically be doing the same thing as well.

The source included in the octave-forge/nonfree is free.

The file splines/gcvsplf.f has a non-commercial clause, but the rest 
are GPL or public domain.

The resulting oct-files cannot be redistributed under the terms of the 
GPL which is why they are not built.

Do you just need gcvsplf.f excluded, with a note to download it from 
netlib?

- Paul