🚀 go-pugleaf

Mirsad Todorovac <tm@rasips2.rasip.etf.hr> wrote:

: Actually, I'm currently installing octave-1.1.1.  So this is not a valid gcc
: help question, therefore I apologize (I was not able to find newsgroup
: discussing octave).

There isn't a newsgroup, but there is a mailing list,
help-octave@bevo.che.wisc.edu.

: There are some libs distributed with octave, as well as with many other
: GNU packages.  Somebody might just find this libs usefull, and time-saving
: in developing other projects.  So, let's go to the main question:
: 
: 1) octave-1.1.1 installing procedure installs such libs at widely accesable
:    directories, like /usr/local/lib.
:
: 2) there is no COPYING.LIBS clause in octave distribution, but the COPYING
:    one.  This means that if anybody uses such libs e.g. libcruft.a, they
:    MUST provide whole of their other source files with their distribution.
:    Notice that it's not neccessary that they ever see the actual source of
:    the lib, and they may not distribute it with the package they develop.
:    They may expect it to be on the end users' system.

This may be a problem, but I'm not sure what to do about it other than
installing a README file for every installed library.  Even then,
people who use the libraries may not see the file.  I think it is
reasonable to assume that they will have at least taken a quick look
at the documentation, where they should find terms for redistribution.

If you're going to redistribute something, I would expect you to at
least try to find out what the license/copyright terms are.

: 3) Why e.g. readline.a is not covered by COPYING.LIBS, which is far less
:    demanding than COPYING.  It may be smart to allow programmers who want
:    to freelly distribute derived programs they write, but not their
:    source code (because they cannot convince their management etc.)
:    to have right to use such crufty libs under COPYING.LIBS clause.
:
: 4) Perhabs it is done by error (readline.a is taken from bash probably),
:    maybe it should say COPYING.LIBS, as for libg++.a .

No, I think it is intentional.

As I see it, the purpose of distributing packages like Octave is not
to save time for people who are not willing to share.  There's nothing
that says that just because something is in the form of a library that
it has to be covered by the LGPL.  If you don't like the terms under
which these programs are distributed, then you don't have to use them.

Followups to gnu.misc.discuss.

jwe