[Pkg-octave-devel] Bug#435214: Bug#435214: Bug#435214: Clarification of licensing terms of semidef-oct

Lieven Vandenberghe 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 [1].
>> [1] http://bugs.debian.org/435214
>> Best regards,

More information about the Pkg-octave-devel mailing list