Subject: Re: [linux-audio-dev] Re: proposed initial DTD for LADSPA-gui-xml .. licensing issues ...
From: David Olofson (david_AT_gardena.net)
Date: Thu Nov 30 2000 - 06:21:14 EET
On Monday 27 November 2000 08:29, Kai Vehmanen wrote:
> 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.
That's what I'm thinking when I say "LGPL for headers".
I'm just hoping that the negative impact on Free/Open Source audio
software is small compared to the positive effect of bringing more
people over to the Real OS.
> A plugin widget library is another thing. I think it's best to
> leave the licensing decision to whoever actually writes the code.
Yes. Widget libraries basically have "single sided" APIs, whereas a
plugin or IPC API has two or more sides. That is, if you can't use a
certain widget library for some reason, you can just find another
one, or roll your own. If you can't use the plugin API for similar
reasons, you could be entirely locked out from the architecture...
//David
.- M u C o S -------------------------. .- David Olofson --------.
| A Free/Open Source | | Audio Hacker |
| Plugin and Integration Standard | | Linux Advocate |
| for | | Open Source Advocate |
| Professional and Consumer | | Singer |
| Multimedia | | Songwriter |
`-----> http://www.linuxdj.com/mucos -' `---> david_AT_linuxdj.com -'
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b28 : Thu Nov 30 2000 - 08:24:34 EET