Subject: RE: [linux-audio-dev] License Concerns about ladspa.h and GPL programs
From: Richard W.E. Furse (richard_AT_muse.demon.co.uk)
Date: Mon Mar 05 2001 - 22:38:41 EET
I agree that GPL is inappropriate. I'd not read the BSD licence before
Conrad sent it to me - does anyone know legally how it differs from LGPL?
Hopefully I'll have this sorted out (LGPL or BSD) by the end of next week
(he says, giving himself a half-deadline).
The wording of the LGPL doesn't really seem to cover APIs (libraries
appears the focus) - is it really appropriate here?
What I'd like to do is make the SDK GPL except for the actual API itself
which would be under LGPL or BSD. Perhaps to make this clear I should split
the current SDK into two packages?
--Richard
-----Original Message-----
From: Paul Davis [SMTP:pbd_AT_Op.Net]
Sent: Friday, March 02, 2001 6:29 AM
To: linux-audio-dev_AT_ginette.musique.umontreal.ca
Subject: Re: [linux-audio-dev] License Concerns about ladspa.h and GPL
programs
>> Richard, Paul, Stefan: could you *please* make the
redistribution/licensing
>> terms of ladspa.h more explicit? It is currently not Open Source, and
>> cannot be distributed eg. in Debian.
>
>For me, one of the following { BSD, LGPL, GPL } would be fine, in
decreasing
>order of preference. Not that I dislike GPL ;-) - it's just that a plugin
>API should be as widely useable as possible, and BSD seems to be the least
>restrictive.
I'd be happy with a BSD license, but I'd prefer LGPL. But definitely
not GPL, since that might complicate things at some point in ways we
don't want.
--p
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b28 : Mon Mar 05 2001 - 23:11:32 EET