Menu
▾
▴
octave-dev
|
From: John W. E. <jw...@be...> - 2006-01-12 06:39:27
|
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. jwe |
|
From: Quentin S. <qsp...@ie...> - 2006-01-12 14:26:55
|
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. -Quentin |
|
From: David B. <Dav...@mo...> - 2006-01-12 18:17:23
|
Quentin Spencer a =E9crit : > John W. Eaton wrote: > > >On 29-Dec-2005, David Bateman wrote: > > > >| > I think decrufting and supporting older versions of octave at the=20 > 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. > >=20 > > > > 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 director= y > 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. > > -Quentin > Quentin, Can you live with it for one more release? If so John has indicated that=20 he is currently incorporating Soren's package manager into 2.9.x and if=20 octave-forge then becomes a purely 2.9.x affair, excluding non-free will=20 become trivial.. Regards David |
|
From: Quentin S. <qsp...@ie...> - 2006-01-12 18:25:50
|
David Bateman wrote: > Quentin Spencer a écrit : > >> 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. >> >> -Quentin >> > Quentin, > > Can you live with it for one more release? If so John has indicated > that he is currently incorporating Soren's package manager into 2.9.x > and if octave-forge then becomes a purely 2.9.x affair, excluding > non-free will become trivial.. Yes, it's really not too much trouble, just a little annoyance. -Quentin |
|
From: Paul K. <pki...@us...> - 2006-01-13 00:32:45
|
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 |
|
From: John W. E. <jw...@be...> - 2006-01-13 00:42:50
|
On 12-Jan-2006, Paul Kienzle wrote: | Do you just need gcvsplf.f excluded, with a note to download it from | netlib? According to the FSF, "user does the link" still amounts to a violation of the GPL. jwe |
|
From: Stefan v. d. W. <st...@su...> - 2006-01-13 16:12:26
|
On Thu, Jan 12, 2006 at 07:42:27PM -0500, John W. Eaton wrote: > On 12-Jan-2006, Paul Kienzle wrote: >=20 > | Do you just need gcvsplf.f excluded, with a note to download it from=20 > | netlib? >=20 > According to the FSF, "user does the link" still amounts to a > violation of the GPL. Not sure what you are trying to say, but it doesn't make sense to me. Octave forge does not build binaries that are illegal to distribute. If the user links such binaries and distributes them outside the license, then that would be wrong. But it is perfectly acceptable to distribute source code that could be linked to a commercial library under the GPL, right? Regards St=E9fan |
|
From: Paul K. <pki...@us...> - 2006-01-14 05:38:44
|
On Jan 13, 2006, at 11:12 AM, Stefan van der Walt wrote: > On Thu, Jan 12, 2006 at 07:42:27PM -0500, John W. Eaton wrote: >> On 12-Jan-2006, Paul Kienzle wrote: >> >> | Do you just need gcvsplf.f excluded, with a note to download it from >> | netlib? >> >> According to the FSF, "user does the link" still amounts to a >> violation of the GPL. > > Not sure what you are trying to say, but it doesn't make sense to me. > Octave forge does not build binaries that are illegal to distribute. > If the user links such binaries and distributes them outside the > license, then that would be wrong. But it is perfectly acceptable to > distribute source code that could be linked to a commercial library > under the GPL, right? That has not yet been decided. If you search for "user does the link" or "indirect infringement" you get a lot of claims that the FSF believes this to be a violation of the GPL. However a google search for either of these terms with site:www.gnu.org does not produce any hits. The best I can come up with is the following GPL FAQ: http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#MereAggregation which suggests that the license should be interpreted as a matter of intent rather than of specific technology. Under this interpretation, even communication via RFC 1149 - Standard for the transmission of IP datagrams on avian carriers - between octave and the non-free subroutine would be a violation. Even if "user does the link" is legal, I encourage anyone who finds the algorithm useful to produce an unencumbered version of it. I found the sensitivity of the result to the particular choice of smoothing parameter to be too subjective for my purposes so I have no desire to do so myself. - Paul |
|
From: Quentin S. <qsp...@ie...> - 2006-01-14 06:25:10
|
Paul Kienzle wrote: > > On Jan 13, 2006, at 11:12 AM, Stefan van der Walt wrote: > >> On Thu, Jan 12, 2006 at 07:42:27PM -0500, John W. Eaton wrote: >> >>> On 12-Jan-2006, Paul Kienzle wrote: >>> >>> | Do you just need gcvsplf.f excluded, with a note to download it from >>> | netlib? >>> >>> According to the FSF, "user does the link" still amounts to a >>> violation of the GPL. >> >> >> Not sure what you are trying to say, but it doesn't make sense to me. >> Octave forge does not build binaries that are illegal to distribute. >> If the user links such binaries and distributes them outside the >> license, then that would be wrong. But it is perfectly acceptable to >> distribute source code that could be linked to a commercial library >> under the GPL, right? > > > That has not yet been decided. > > If you search for "user does the link" or "indirect infringement" > you get a lot of claims that the FSF believes this to be a violation > of the GPL. However a google search for either of these terms with > site:www.gnu.org does not produce any hits. > > The best I can come up with is the following GPL FAQ: > > http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#MereAggregation > > which suggests that the license should be interpreted as a matter of > intent rather than of specific technology. Under this interpretation, > even communication via RFC 1149 - Standard for the transmission of IP > datagrams on avian carriers - between octave and the non-free subroutine > would be a violation. > > Even if "user does the link" is legal, I encourage anyone who finds > the algorithm useful to produce an unencumbered version of it. I > found the sensitivity of the result to the particular choice of > smoothing parameter to be too subjective for my purposes so I have > no desire to do so myself. Actually, the original question that brought this up was so much about linking GPL and non-GPL code (there are plenty of different licenses in octave-forge), but the non-commercial distribution clause. The Fedora project does not want any packages that forbid commercial distribution because they would cause problems if a 3rd party wanted to burn CDs of Fedora and sell them, for example. Then there is the whole separate question of what constitutes non-commercial use... -Quentin |
×
Want the latest updates on software, tech news, and AI?
Get latest updates about software, tech news, and AI from SourceForge directly in your inbox once a month.
Thanks for helping keep SourceForge clean.
X