Re: Octave FAQ update about GPL

[Mike Miller]

On Wed, Feb 12, 2014 at 19:26:53 -0800, fgnievinski wrote:
> But Mike, how do we solve the following conundrum.  I write m code which
> calls a function existing both as part of a proprietary Matlab toolbox and a
> GPL'ed Octave Forge package.  When does the copyleft requirement of the
> latter enter in effect?  Couldn't the GPL copyleft requirement be rendered
> moot by (falsely) claiming the code was only intended to run in the
> proprietary environment?  It's a puzzle I was hoping the System Library /
> Standard Interface concept would solve...

Yes, these are good questions, but I don't think that's the way to solve
it :)

It seems to me that this is the point that the Octave FAQ is trying to
make explicit. According to the Octave FAQ, interpreted m-files may be
licensed any way the author chooses. Taken on its own, that certainly
sounds absolute.

I think your draft mail to the FSF licensing folks is mostly in the
right direction for what you want to clarify. I just think you should
avoid using the term System Library and invoking the System Library
exception, since it does not apply to this situation. I will reply to
that message separately and highlight the parts that I think need some
rewording for my part.

-- 
mike