Subject: Re: [linux-audio-dev] License Concerns about ladspa.h and GPL programs
From: Richard Dobson (RWD_AT_cableinet.co.uk)
Date: Tue Mar 06 2001 - 12:33:03 EET
This is quite an interesting question. The usual remit of these licenses
is to allow changes ad lib, so long as the code is available to anyone.
However, an API isn't really code, but a specification, and the one
thing you don't want is people changing it ad lib! So is a license even
appropriate in this case? The API can be freely available, but
unauthorized changes must be prevented. You can reseve copyright in the
API specification document, and disallow all changes to that. GPL and
LGPL don't seem to cover this sort of question at all. Paul will have
his own insights into this question, as Csound the ~language~ is a
specification, whereas Csound the ~code~ is (largely) under the MIT
license.
Richard Dobson
Paul Davis wrote:
>
> In message <01C0A5B4.619F4CA0_AT_MUSE >you write:
> >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?
>
> The BSD license would allow third parties to make changes and
> extensions to the "library" and release their work under a different
> license and/or never release their changes in source form.
>
> The LGPL prevents this. It is a "sticky" license, and it prevents 3rd
> parties from making proprietary/private changes that are released only
> as binaries.
>
> Of course, since this is only an API, its not totally clear how
> appropriate either one is. Maybe "Ask Slashdot" ? :)))
>
> --p
-- Test your DAW with my Soundcard Attrition Page! http://www.bath.ac.uk/~masrwd (LU: 3rd July 2000) CDP: http://www.bath.ac.uk/~masjpf/CDP/CDP.htm (LU: 23rd February 2000)
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b28 : Tue Mar 06 2001 - 13:25:51 EET