Re: Octave FAQ update about GPL

[John W. Eaton]

On 02/12/2014 05:23 PM, fgnievinski wrote:
> Here it is.  Please don't get too annoyed by the verbosity -- there's some
> redundancy, so that each usage case can be deemed true/false independently
> from the others.  I'll wait for your okay, comments, changes before bugging
> licensing at FSF.  I'll send in a separate message a discussion which I
> think is too esoteric for the FSF folks.
> -F.

> [Label: using the Octave interpreter]
> * Code written entirely in the scripting language of Octave (interpreted
> code in .m files), that invokes only language keywords (such as "if",
> "switch", etc): code may be released under the terms of whatever license you
> choose.
> - Source: <http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#IfInterpreterIsGPL>,
> paragraph 1.

If I understand correctly, you are trying to specify what license must
be used for code that clearly relies on specific Octave features.  So
if you would argue that code that calls functions specific to Octave
is a derivative work of Octave, then wouldn't code that uses keywords
specific to Octave also be a derivative work?

I could be wrong, but I don't think that that makes sense, or is
reasonable to claim.  As the GPL FAQ says, your program is just data
that Octave interprets.

If you are expecting the law to work like an algorithm, you
will fail.  So I really don't see the point of trying to expand the
FAQ to nail down all possible cases.  I don't think that is possible
or even particularly useful.

I suggest that you take a different approach here.  I know (at least
some of) the people at the FSF who might help us with these issues.  I
expect that it will be much easier for them to help us if we ask these
questions in a different way.  Instead of writing FAQ entries and
asking them to comment on or approve them, it would probably be better
to look for two or three specific things that you want to clarify and
ask specific questions about those cases using specific examples.  In
other words, a question like this:

  I have a program that works this way: ....  Does that mean it has to
  be released under the terms of the GPL?  I've looked at the FAQ and
  the answers to the questions A, B, and C seem to be related to this
  question, but don't seem to apply exactly.  My case seems different
  in this way: ..., and that's confusing me because of ....

jwe