From: "Jan Simon" <>
Newsgroups: comp.soft-sys.matlab
Subject: Re: Official rules for the FEX
Date: Sun, 20 Dec 2009 15:55:19 +0000 (UTC)
Organization: Universit&#228;t Heidelberg
Lines: 15
Message-ID: <hglhd7$e6g$>
References: <hgihbj$3k$> <hgitds$5i8$> <>
Reply-To: "Jan Simon" <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Trace: 1261324519 14544 (20 Dec 2009 15:55:19 GMT)
NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 20 Dec 2009 15:55:19 +0000 (UTC)
X-Newsreader: MATLAB Central Newsreader 869888
Xref: comp.soft-sys.matlab:593958

Dear Doug!

> I hope you realize that TMW does not want 
> to be held liable in case someone were to upload a malicious MEX 
> function (with false source code, perhaps).  I think the ban on MEX and 
> p-code is completely justified.

Thanks Doug! I do not dissent. Is this your opinion or do you cite TMW?

If TMW could be held reliable for uploaded MEX files, couldn't they be held reliable for uploaded links to malicious MEX also?!
What about malicious M-functions or obfuscated C-source with unpredictable results? The BSD license claims, that the downloaders run all functions on their own risk. Isn't this a suffcient protection for TMW?

I realize that publishing compiled MEX might interfere with some wants of TMW. I have no doubt that TMW has good reasons. But I cannot find clear statements -- except for "Compiled files must be accompanied by their source.", which is the opposite of what they accept in reality.

Kind regards and looking forward to further discussion, Jan