Subject: Re: [linux-audio-dev] Re: proposed initial DTD for LADSPA-gui-xml .. licensing issues ...
From: Kai Vehmanen (kaiv_AT_wakkanet.fi)
Date: Mon Nov 27 2000 - 09:29:47 EET
On Sun, 26 Nov 2000, Greg Turpin wrote:
> What does the list think? LGPL or GPL?
GPL (or whatever you like best) is suitable for most code, but for glue
compononts like the LADSPA header, which are primarily meant for
module-to-module communication, LGPL looks tempting. I see this as a
win-win situation for free software developers. If a closed-source host
(talking in LADSPA terms) enters the Linux scene, you get a new interface
for using your free plugins. If closed-source plugins enter the scene,
you'll get more plugins for your free host.
A plugin widget library is another thing. I think it's best to leave the
licensing decision to whoever actually writes the code. Hmm, maybe if Paul
releases his widget set under obscure enough licence (POL, Paul's Open
Licence?), Stallman gets annoyed and starts funding a competing GNU
project! At least we'd get more developers. ;D
-- . http://www.eca.cx ... [ audio software for linux ] /\ . . http://www.eca.cx/aivastus ... [ aivastus net radio ] /\ . . http://www.eca.cx/sculpscape [ my armchair-tunes mp3/ra/wav ]
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b28 : Mon Nov 27 2000 - 11:16:05 EET