Hi Paul
I'm Carnë Draug, the current maintainer of the Octave Forge. You have
released all of your code under GPL+ or public domain with the
exception of medfilt1 on the signal package.
https://sourceforge.net/p/octave/code/11396/tree/trunk/octave-forge/main/signal/src/medfilt1.cc
Your license text reads:
Copyright 2000 Paul Kienzle <pki...@us...>
This source code is freely redistributable and may be used for
any purpose. This copyright notice must be maintained.
Paul Kienzle is not responsible for the consequences of using
this software.
However, we decided to drop usage of non-standard licenses. Could you
please use a more standard one? Being able to give it a recognisable
name not only eases our organisation but also its
acceptance by downstream package maintainers such as Debian. From
Debian's upstream guide "Please do not write your own license text if
you can at all avoid it. Depending on your wishes, the GPL, LGPL or a
BSD-style license will most likely be appropriate, and it is far
easier to tell whether something is allowed if we can look at past
discussions of the same text. "
I'm sorry to bother with such non-scientific things. I'm not a lawyer
myself, but unfortunately things like this need to be made clear.
Please just let me know which one you prefer and I'll take care of
everything else.
Thanks in advance,
Carnë Draug
|
