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

[Lieven Vandenberghe <vandenbe@ee.ucla.edu>]

Rafael,

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.

Thanks.

Lieven


Stephen Boyd wrote:
> whatever is easiest.  i am happy with semidef_prog having either license.
>
> Rafael Laboissiere wrote:
> > * Lieven Vandenberghe <vandenbe@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,
> >
> >