[Pkg-octave-devel] Bug#435214: Bug#435214: Bug#435214: Clarification of licensing terms of semidef-oct
vandenbe at ee.ucla.edu
Tue Aug 7 16:43:14 UTC 2007
I would prefer the second option, because we don't distribute the
software any longer.
Maybe it is sufficient to replace the old license under the copyright
line in the C file with the standard LGPL header? We can use version
3 or higher of the LGPL, unless Octave has a different policy.
Stephen Boyd wrote:
> whatever is easiest. i am happy with semidef_prog having either license.
> Rafael Laboissiere wrote:
>> * Lieven Vandenberghe <vandenbe at ee.ucla.edu> [2007-08-06 09:13]:
>>> I can see why our license is ambiguous. When we wrote it in 1994,
>>> we intended it to mean that the program is entirely free, for any
>>> purpose (including commercial) and without any restriction.
>>> If it is easier if we switch to a standard free license, I would
>>> choose the LGPL.
>> Thanks for your reply.
>> As regards the Debian package, the best situation would be that you
>> do a new
>> release of the software with the changed license. If you are not
>> willing to
>> do it because semidef_prog is already old software and not maintained
>> anymore, I will release a new version of the package stating that it
>> is released now under the LGPL (if Stephen Boyd agrees, of course)
>> and will add
>> the URL of this bug report discussion .
>>  http://bugs.debian.org/435214
>> Best regards,
More information about the Pkg-octave-devel