Quick Question about GNU Octave using

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
12 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Quick Question about GNU Octave using

김성희

Dear the person in charge.

 

Hello,

 

I am Seonghee Kim at PI Group WISOL co.,ltd.

 

I am writing to know GNU Octave using.

I wonder If It is used for commercial either It is illegal or not.

I look forward to your reply.

 

Thank you for reading this.

Gool luck with you and GNU Octave.

 

 

Best wishes.

 

Seonghee Kim.

 



(주)와이솔 경영지원실 PI그룹 김성희 (Seonghee Kim 金圣姬)

⊙전자메일: [hidden email]

⊙휴대전화: 010-6482-7625

⊙회사전화: 070-7837-2795

⊙FAX: 031-378-6340

⊙주소: 경기도 오산시 가장산업동로 28-40 와이솔 3공장 경영지원실


Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Quick Question about GNU Octave using

marco atzeri-2
On Mon, Jul 9, 2018 at 3:30 AM, 김성희 <[hidden email]> wrote:
> Dear the person in charge.
>
> Hello,
> I am Seonghee Kim at PI Group WISOL co.,ltd.
> I am writing to know GNU Octave using.
>
> I wonder If It is used for commercial either It is illegal or not.
>
> I look forward to your reply.

The license is very clear

https://www.gnu.org/software/octave/license.html
https://www.gnu.org/copyleft/gpl.html

There is no restriction on the usage.

> Thank you for reading this.
>
> Gool luck with you and GNU Octave.
>
> Seonghee Kim.

Regards
Marco

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Quick Question about GNU Octave using

John W. Eaton
Administrator
On 07/09/2018 10:31 AM, marco atzeri wrote:

> On Mon, Jul 9, 2018 at 3:30 AM, 김성희 <[hidden email]> wrote:
>> Dear the person in charge.
>>
>> Hello,
>> I am Seonghee Kim at PI Group WISOL co.,ltd.
>> I am writing to know GNU Octave using.
>>
>> I wonder If It is used for commercial either It is illegal or not.
>>
>> I look forward to your reply.
>
> The license is very clear
>
> https://www.gnu.org/software/octave/license.html
> https://www.gnu.org/copyleft/gpl.html
>
> There is no restriction on the usage.

Yes, but we need to be careful about what people are thinking of when
they say "commercial" and "use".

Some people may be thinking "use for commercial purposes" means
"incorporating in and distributing as part of a proprietary product"
that has a license that is not compatible with the GPL.  Distributing
Octave under terms that are not compatible with the GPL is not allowed.

But if you are just running the software to do calculations as part of a
commercial enterprise, then no, there are no restrictions.

jwe

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Quick Question about GNU Octave using

Ian McCallion
On Mon, 9 Jul 2018, 15:49 John W. Eaton, <[hidden email]> wrote:
On 07/09/2018 10:31 AM, marco atzeri wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 9, 2018 at 3:30 AM, 김성희 <[hidden email]> wrote:
>> Dear the person in charge.
>>
>> Hello,
>> I am Seonghee Kim at PI Group WISOL co.,ltd.
>> I am writing to know GNU Octave using.
>>
>> I wonder If It is used for commercial either It is illegal or not.
>>
>> I look forward to your reply.
>
> The license is very clear
>
> https://www.gnu.org/software/octave/license.html
> https://www.gnu.org/copyleft/gpl.html
>
> There is no restriction on the usage.

Yes, but we need to be careful about what people are thinking of when
they say "commercial" and "use".

Some people may be thinking "use for commercial purposes" means
"incorporating in and distributing as part of a proprietary product"
that has a license that is not compatible with the GPL.  Distributing
Octave under terms that are not compatible with the GPL is not allowed.

But if you are just running the software to do calculations as part of a
commercial enterprise, then no, there are no restrictions.

Another possible interpretation of "Commercial Use" is a product that is sold but depends on Octave to work and the user is instructed to install Octave before trying to use the product.

I assume this is allowed.

Cheers... Ian 
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Quick Question about GNU Octave using

John W. Eaton
Administrator
On 07/09/2018 11:38 AM, Ian McCallion wrote:

> Another possible interpretation of "Commercial Use" is a product that is
> sold but depends on Octave to work and the user is instructed to install
> Octave before trying to use the product.
>
> I assume this is allowed.

I'm not a lawyer, but as I understand, it depends on the details and
whether the product is a derivative work of Octave.  The method of
distribution doesn't really matter.  If a product actually "depends on
Octave to work" then that sounds like a derivative work of Octave to me.

Also, whether the product is sold or not is irrelevant.  The GPL does
not prohibit commercial activities.  It prohibits creating proprietary
derivative works.

jwe

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Quick Question about GNU Octave using

Ian McCallion
On Mon, 9 Jul 2018, 16:52 John W. Eaton, <[hidden email]> wrote:
On 07/09/2018 11:38 AM, Ian McCallion wrote:

> Another possible interpretation of "Commercial Use" is a product that is
> sold but depends on Octave to work and the user is instructed to install
> Octave before trying to use the product.
>
> I assume this is allowed.

I'm not a lawyer, but as I understand, it depends on the details and
whether the product is a derivative work of Octave.  The method of
distribution doesn't really matter.  If a product actually "depends on
Octave to work" then that sounds like a derivative work of Octave to me.

Surely Octave is merely providing APIs (like android or any other operating system does) and the product is simply a (maybe paid-for) proprietary app.

Cheers... Ian
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Quick Question about GNU Octave using

Mike Miller-4
On Mon, Jul 09, 2018 at 17:11:15 +0100, Ian McCallion wrote:
> Surely Octave is merely providing APIs (like android or any other operating
> system does) and the product is simply a (maybe paid-for) proprietary app.

If an application uses Octave's APIs, then that application is a derived
work of Octave and must be distributed under the same GPLv3 terms as
Octave itself.

--
mike

signature.asc (849 bytes) Download Attachment
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Quick Question about GNU Octave using

Bradley Kennedy
I don’t think that is a good way to put it. That makes it sound like user programs in Octave must be licensed under GPL restrictions.

> On Jul 9, 2018, at 14:42, Mike Miller <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> On Mon, Jul 09, 2018 at 17:11:15 +0100, Ian McCallion wrote:
>> Surely Octave is merely providing APIs (like android or any other operating
>> system does) and the product is simply a (maybe paid-for) proprietary app.
>
> If an application uses Octave's APIs, then that application is a derived
> work of Octave and must be distributed under the same GPLv3 terms as
> Octave itself.
>
> --
> mike


Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Quick Question about GNU Octave using

bpabbott
Administrator

On Jul 9, 2018, at 16:37, Brad <[hidden email]> wrote:

On Jul 9, 2018, at 14:42, Mike Miller <[hidden email]> wrote:

On Mon, Jul 09, 2018 at 17:11:15 +0100, Ian McCallion wrote:
Surely Octave is merely providing APIs (like android or any other operating
system does) and the product is simply a (maybe paid-for) proprietary app.

If an application uses Octave's APIs, then that application is a derived
work of Octave and must be distributed under the same GPLv3 terms as
Octave itself.

--
mike
 
I don’t think that is a good way to put it. That makes it sound like user programs in Octave must be licensed under GPL restrictions.

Mike is accurate, but could be interpreted incorrectly.

If an application uses Octave's APIs, then that application is a derived work of Octave. If the application is distributed, it must be distributed under the same  GPLv3 terms as Octave itself.

If the application is not distributed, then (afaik) the GPL terms do not apply.

Ben
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Quick Question about GNU Octave using

Bradley Kennedy


On Jul 9, 2018, at 20:05, Ben Abbott <[hidden email]> wrote:


On Jul 9, 2018, at 16:37, Brad <[hidden email]> wrote:

On Jul 9, 2018, at 14:42, Mike Miller <[hidden email]> wrote:

On Mon, Jul 09, 2018 at 17:11:15 +0100, Ian McCallion wrote:
Surely Octave is merely providing APIs (like android or any other operating
system does) and the product is simply a (maybe paid-for) proprietary app.

If an application uses Octave's APIs, then that application is a derived
work of Octave and must be distributed under the same GPLv3 terms as
Octave itself.

--
mike
 
I don’t think that is a good way to put it. That makes it sound like user programs in Octave must be licensed under GPL restrictions.

Mike is accurate, but could be interpreted incorrectly.

If an application uses Octave's APIs, then that application is a derived work of Octave. If the application is distributed, it must be distributed under the same  GPLv3 terms as Octave itself.

If the application is not distributed, then (afaik) the GPL terms do not apply.

Ben

Can you be concrete in your example of API, if I write an .m file called with

x = rand(20, 1);
printf(‘%f" , mean(x));

And distribute this, (of course a toy program) as an application is it now restricted by the GPL?

Or do you mean things that link against Octave shared objects. Because the former contradicts what we saw with Google vs Oracle (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oracle_America,_Inc._v._Google,_Inc.) and how we currently coexist with Matlab.

I come from a background in which my understanding of API is more general than perhaps more traditional schools of thought.

Cheers,
Brad Kennedy
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Quick Question about GNU Octave using

Mike Miller-4
In reply to this post by bpabbott
On Mon, Jul 09, 2018 at 17:05:50 -0700, Ben Abbott wrote:

>
> > On Jul 9, 2018, at 16:37, Brad <[hidden email]> wrote:
> >
> >> On Jul 9, 2018, at 14:42, Mike Miller <[hidden email]> wrote:
> >>
> >> If an application uses Octave's APIs, then that application is a derived
> >> work of Octave and must be distributed under the same GPLv3 terms as
> >> Octave itself.
> >  
> > I don’t think that is a good way to put it. That makes it sound like
> > user programs in Octave must be licensed under GPL restrictions.
>
> Mike is accurate, but could be interpreted incorrectly.
>
> If an application uses Octave's APIs, then that application is a derived
> work of Octave. If the application is distributed, it must be
> distributed under the same GPLv3 terms as Octave itself.
Thank you for rewording that :)

Also, I think Brad is referring to the API of the Octave interpreter,
the set of functions that m-file scripts and functions have access to.
I'm not sure which APIs Ian was referring to.

It's true I was originally thinking of programs that use Octave's C++
API, not user programs written in the Octave language.

If a user program uses the Matlab API, and just happens to run
successfully in Octave, then it is arguably not a derived work of
Octave, it is just data that Octave happens to interpret correctly.

If a user program, even if it is just an m-file, calls
'very_special_optimized_octave_function' and relies upon its results,
then it might be reasonable to argue that it is a derived work of that
function.

> If the application is not distributed, then (afaik) the GPL terms do not
> apply.

Similarly, if an application is only distributed to three users, then it
is possible that only those three users are entitled to their rights
granted by the GPL.

--
mike

signature.asc (849 bytes) Download Attachment
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Quick Question about GNU Octave using

Bradley Kennedy


> On Jul 9, 2018, at 20:23, Mike Miller <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> On Mon, Jul 09, 2018 at 17:05:50 -0700, Ben Abbott wrote:
>>
>>> On Jul 9, 2018, at 16:37, Brad <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Jul 9, 2018, at 14:42, Mike Miller <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> If an application uses Octave's APIs, then that application is a derived
>>>> work of Octave and must be distributed under the same GPLv3 terms as
>>>> Octave itself.
>>>
>>> I don’t think that is a good way to put it. That makes it sound like
>>> user programs in Octave must be licensed under GPL restrictions.
>>
>> Mike is accurate, but could be interpreted incorrectly.
>>
>> If an application uses Octave's APIs, then that application is a derived
>> work of Octave. If the application is distributed, it must be
>> distributed under the same GPLv3 terms as Octave itself.
>
> Thank you for rewording that :)
>
> Also, I think Brad is referring to the API of the Octave interpreter,
> the set of functions that m-file scripts and functions have access to.
> I'm not sure which APIs Ian was referring to.
>
> It's true I was originally thinking of programs that use Octave's C++
> API, not user programs written in the Octave language.
>
> If a user program uses the Matlab API, and just happens to run
> successfully in Octave, then it is arguably not a derived work of
> Octave, it is just data that Octave happens to interpret correctly.
>
> If a user program, even if it is just an m-file, calls
> 'very_special_optimized_octave_function' and relies upon its results,
> then it might be reasonable to argue that it is a derived work of that
> function.
>
>> If the application is not distributed, then (afaik) the GPL terms do not
>> apply.
>
> Similarly, if an application is only distributed to three users, then it
> is possible that only those three users are entitled to their rights
> granted by the GPL.
>
> --
> mike


Just to point out:
> Similarly, if an application is only distributed to three users, then it
> is possible that only those three users are entitled to their rights
> granted by the GPL.
Those users are also allowed to share the application granted they also provide the source code to the people they distribute it to.