Xoctave - Human interface to GNU Octave

[mmab]

Please check it out new GUI for Octave. It's free for personal use.
http://xoctave.webs.com/

M.M.A.B

Capabilities

    * Can connect to Octave and capture output
    * Can get variable list
    * Variables can be saved, viewed using variable viewer
    * Can handle scripts using editor
    * Breakpoints can be used inside editor
    * Package handling
    * Path browser
    * Many options
    * Help is also available
    * Multilanguage support (English,Turkish)



_______________________________________________
Help-octave mailing list
Help-octave@...
https://www-old.cae.wisc.edu/mailman/listinfo/help-octave

[John W. Eaton-3]

On 22-Jun-2009, MMA Bicak wrote:

| Please check it out new GUI for Octave. It's free for personal use.

I only see binaries for Windows systems.

Is it free software in the sense of
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html?

jwe
_______________________________________________
Help-octave mailing list
Help-octave@...
https://www-old.cae.wisc.edu/mailman/listinfo/help-octave

[Carlo de Falco-2]

2009/6/23 John W. Eaton <jwe@...>:

> On 22-Jun-2009, MMA Bicak wrote:
>
> | Please check it out new GUI for Octave. It's free for personal use.
>
> I only see binaries for Windows systems.
>
> Is it free software in the sense of
> http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html?
>
> jwe

According to the "license" page on the website it seems not:

-----------------------------------
Human Readable License of Xoctave
For detailed license information please read following License section.

You are free:

to Share — to copy, distribute and transmit the work
to Remix — to adapt the work
Under the following conditions:

Attribution — You must attribute the work in the manner specified by
the author or licensor (but not in any way that suggests that they
endorse you or your use of the work).

What does "Attribute this work" mean?
The page you came from contained embedded licensing metadata,
including how the creator wishes to be attributed for re-use. You can
use the HTML here to cite the work. Doing so will also include
metadata on your page so that others can find the original work as
well.
Noncommercial — You may not use this work for commercial purposes.

-----------------------------------

I am dubious about the "attribution" clause but, even though IANAL, I
am quite sure that the non-commercial clause is incompatible with GPL.
c.

_______________________________________________
Help-octave mailing list
Help-octave@...
https://www-old.cae.wisc.edu/mailman/listinfo/help-octave

[Jaroslav Hajek-2]

On Tue, Jun 23, 2009 at 9:48 AM, Carlo de Falco<carlo.defalco@...> wrote:

> 2009/6/23 John W. Eaton <jwe@...>:
>> On 22-Jun-2009, MMA Bicak wrote:
>>
>> | Please check it out new GUI for Octave. It's free for personal use.
>>
>> I only see binaries for Windows systems.
>>
>> Is it free software in the sense of
>> http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html?
>>
>> jwe
>
>
> According to the "license" page on the website it seems not:
>
> -----------------------------------
> Human Readable License of Xoctave
> For detailed license information please read following License section.
>
> You are free:
>
> to Share — to copy, distribute and transmit the work
> to Remix — to adapt the work
> Under the following conditions:
>
> Attribution — You must attribute the work in the manner specified by
> the author or licensor (but not in any way that suggests that they
> endorse you or your use of the work).
>
> What does "Attribute this work" mean?
> The page you came from contained embedded licensing metadata,
> including how the creator wishes to be attributed for re-use. You can
> use the HTML here to cite the work. Doing so will also include
> metadata on your page so that others can find the original work as
> well.
> Noncommercial — You may not use this work for commercial purposes.
>
> -----------------------------------
>
> I am dubious about the "attribution" clause but, even though IANAL, I
> am quite sure that the non-commercial clause is incompatible with GPL.
> c.

This is one of Creative Commons licenses, namely CC-BY-NC. According
to FSF, only CC-BY and CC-BY-SA are free, and neither of those (in v.
2.0) is GPL compatible.
The question here is whether Xoctave constitutes a derivative work.
The homepage says Octave is encapsulated using pipes, which is
probably OK (not a derivative work).

--
RNDr. Jaroslav Hajek
computing expert & GNU Octave developer
Aeronautical Research and Test Institute (VZLU)
Prague, Czech Republic
url: www.highegg.matfyz.cz

_______________________________________________
Help-octave mailing list
Help-octave@...
https://www-old.cae.wisc.edu/mailman/listinfo/help-octave

[Francesco Potortì]

>> Is it free software in the sense of
>> http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html?

>According to the "license" page on the website it seems not:
>
>-----------------------------------
>Human Readable License of Xoctave

The license is not free in the sense of free software nor, equivalently,
in the sense of open source.  Attribution is okay, it is a standard
requirements even for free software.  What makes it non free is the "non
commercial" clause.  Free software (or equivalently open source)
requires no restrictions on usage, so unfortunately "non commercial"
implies non free :(

It would be nice if Xoctave's author considered switching to a free
license :)

--
Francesco Potortì (ricercatore)        Voice: [phone] (op.2111)
ISTI - Area della ricerca CNR          Fax:   [phone]
via G. Moruzzi 1, I-56124 Pisa         Email: Potorti@...
(entrance 20, 1st floor, room C71)     Web:   http://fly.isti.cnr.it/
_______________________________________________
Help-octave mailing list
Help-octave@...
https://www-old.cae.wisc.edu/mailman/listinfo/help-octave

[dbateman]

Jaroslav Hajek-2 wrote:

This is one of Creative Commons licenses, namely CC-BY-NC. According
to FSF, only CC-BY and CC-BY-SA are free, and neither of those (in v.
2.0) is GPL compatible.
The question here is whether Xoctave constitutes a derivative work.
The homepage says Octave is encapsulated using pipes, which is
probably OK (not a derivative work).

It is a derived work if XOctave is bundled with Octave when it is shipped so that Octave and XOctave become a single product in the eyes of the user. As far as I can see it isn't bundled with octave so this is probably ok...

D.

[Francesco Potortì]

>> The question here is whether Xoctave constitutes a derivative work.
>> The homepage says Octave is encapsulated using pipes, which is
>> probably OK (not a derivative work).
>
>It is a derived work if XOctave is bundled with Octave when it is shipped so
>that Octave and XOctave become a single product in the eyes of the
>user.

No, this is not a problem either.  Mere aggregation on a distribution
medium is not covered by the GPL.  Only thing that matters is the
interaction mechanism.  If Xoctave uses pipes to communicate with
Octave, they are two very clearly separated programs, and no GPL license
issues can exist.

--
Francesco Potortì (ricercatore)        Voice: [phone] (op.2111)
ISTI - Area della ricerca CNR          Fax:   [phone]
via G. Moruzzi 1, I-56124 Pisa         Email: Potorti@...
(entrance 20, 1st floor, room C71)     Web:   http://fly.isti.cnr.it/
_______________________________________________
Help-octave mailing list
Help-octave@...
https://www-old.cae.wisc.edu/mailman/listinfo/help-octave

[John W. Eaton-3]

On 23-Jun-2009, Francesco Potorti` wrote:

| >> The question here is whether Xoctave constitutes a derivative work.
| >> The homepage says Octave is encapsulated using pipes, which is
| >> probably OK (not a derivative work).
| >
| >It is a derived work if XOctave is bundled with Octave when it is shipped so
| >that Octave and XOctave become a single product in the eyes of the
| >user.
|
| No, this is not a problem either.  Mere aggregation on a distribution
| medium is not covered by the GPL.  Only thing that matters is the
| interaction mechanism.  If Xoctave uses pipes to communicate with
| Octave, they are two very clearly separated programs, and no GPL license
| issues can exist.

My questions weren't really about the letter of the GPL.  I wanted to
know whether this is software that I would be interested in.  If it is
not free software, I'm not very interested in it, and I'd rather not
have people promoting proprietary software on the Octave mailing
lists.

jwe
_______________________________________________
Help-octave mailing list
Help-octave@...
https://www-old.cae.wisc.edu/mailman/listinfo/help-octave

[dbateman2]

Francesco Potorti` wrote:
> No, this is not a problem either.  Mere aggregation on a distribution
> medium is not covered by the GPL.  Only thing that matters is the
> interaction mechanism.  If Xoctave uses pipes to communicate with
> Octave, they are two very clearly separated programs, and no GPL license
> issues can exist.
>
>  
Yes this is true for a distribution where XOctave and Octave are clearly
different products, but to take a GPLed code package it a wrapper that
isn't GPLed and then distribute the lot as a single product definitely
is... The same issue was brought up with the MEX interface to Octave and
its the same situation there, see the FAQ in 3.2.0.. I believe there is
a faq entry on the gnu website but I can't find it

D.


--
David Bateman                                dbateman@...
35 rue Gambetta                              [phone] (Home)
92100 Boulogne-Billancourt FRANCE            [phone] (Mob)

_______________________________________________
Help-octave mailing list
Help-octave@...
https://www-old.cae.wisc.edu/mailman/listinfo/help-octave

[Francesco Potortì]

>> No, this is not a problem either.  Mere aggregation on a distribution
>> medium is not covered by the GPL.  Only thing that matters is the
>> interaction mechanism.  If Xoctave uses pipes to communicate with
>> Octave, they are two very clearly separated programs, and no GPL license
>> issues can exist.
>>  
>Yes this is true for a distribution where XOctave and Octave are clearly
>different products, but to take a GPLed code package it a wrapper that
>isn't GPLed and then distribute the lot as a single product definitely
>is... The same issue was brought up with the MEX interface to Octave and
>its the same situation there, see the FAQ in 3.2.0.

The MEX interface is somewhat intimate with Octave's internals and
requires linking.  On the other hand, pipes are the most "distant"
interface that you can think of, with the exception of parameter passing
via command line, so it is a different case.  A more detailed discussion
is here:
 <http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#MereAggregation>.

--
Francesco Potortì (ricercatore)        Voice: [phone] (op.2111)
ISTI - Area della ricerca CNR          Fax:   [phone]
via G. Moruzzi 1, I-56124 Pisa         Email: Potorti@...
(entrance 20, 1st floor, room C71)     Web:   http://fly.isti.cnr.it/
_______________________________________________
Help-octave mailing list
Help-octave@...
https://www-old.cae.wisc.edu/mailman/listinfo/help-octave

[dbateman2]

Francesco Potorti` wrote:
> The MEX interface is somewhat intimate with Octave's internals and
> requires linking.  On the other hand, pipes are the most "distant"
> interface that you can think of, with the exception of parameter passing
> via command line, so it is a different case.  A more detailed discussion
> is here:
>  <http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#MereAggregation>.
>
>  
Distribution on a CD of two products leaves the it evident that there
are two distinct products.. Bundling a GPLed software into an installer
of a non GPL product is not aggregation in the sense of the above faq as
the GPLed product is no longer distinct..

D.


--
David Bateman                                dbateman@...
35 rue Gambetta                              [phone] (Home)
92100 Boulogne-Billancourt FRANCE            [phone] (Mob)

_______________________________________________
Help-octave mailing list
Help-octave@...
https://www-old.cae.wisc.edu/mailman/listinfo/help-octave

[Francesco Potorti`-3]

>> The MEX interface is somewhat intimate with Octave's internals and
>> requires linking.  On the other hand, pipes are the most "distant"
>> interface that you can think of, with the exception of parameter passing
>> via command line, so it is a different case.  A more detailed discussion
>> is here:
>>  <http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#MereAggregation>.
>>  
>Distribution on a CD of two products leaves the it evident that there
>are two distinct products.

The distribution mean is not that important.  If you use a CD or an
image, or a tar file, or the repository of a distribution is essentially
the same thing.

>   . Bundling a GPLed software into an installer
>of a non GPL product is not aggregation in the sense of the above faq as
>the GPLed product is no longer distinct..

I think it would be simpler to use two different installers.  However,
even if only one is used, I think it would make no difference.

Anyway, I think that we have highlighted what are the issues, going
further would only make sense for a specific real case.

--
Francesco Potortì (ricercatore)        Voice: [phone] (op.2111)
ISTI - Area della ricerca CNR          Fax:   [phone]
via G. Moruzzi 1, I-56124 Pisa         Email: Potorti@...
(entrance 20, 1st floor, room C71)     Web:   http://fly.isti.cnr.it/
_______________________________________________
Help-octave mailing list
Help-octave@...
https://www-old.cae.wisc.edu/mailman/listinfo/help-octave

[mmab]

thanks for the comments.
I can switch the license to GPL, LGPL or any open source, if anyone wants to
contribute to the project. I also posted a message to Lazarus community, but
there seem to be little intention on contribution. Interest upon the project
will direct the way of Xoctave development.

M.M.Altug Bicak

Francesco Potorti`-3 wrote:

>> The MEX interface is somewhat intimate with Octave's internals and
>> requires linking.  On the other hand, pipes are the most "distant"
>> interface that you can think of, with the exception of parameter passing
>> via command line, so it is a different case.  A more detailed discussion
>> is here:
>>  <http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#MereAggregation>.
>>  
>Distribution on a CD of two products leaves the it evident that there
>are two distinct products.

The distribution mean is not that important.  If you use a CD or an
image, or a tar file, or the repository of a distribution is essentially
the same thing.

>   . Bundling a GPLed software into an installer
>of a non GPL product is not aggregation in the sense of the above faq as
>the GPLed product is no longer distinct..

I think it would be simpler to use two different installers.  However,
even if only one is used, I think it would make no difference.

Anyway, I think that we have highlighted what are the issues, going
further would only make sense for a specific real case.

--
Francesco Potortì (ricercatore)        Voice: [phone] (op.2111)
ISTI - Area della ricerca CNR          Fax:   [phone]
via G. Moruzzi 1, I-56124 Pisa         Email: [e-mail]
(entrance 20, 1st floor, room C71)     Web:   http://fly.isti.cnr.it/
_______________________________________________
Help-octave mailing list
[e-mail]
https://www-old.cae.wisc.edu/mailman/listinfo/help-octave