RE: [linux-audio-dev] License Concerns about ladspa.h and GPL pro grams

New Message Reply About this list Date view Thread view Subject view Author view Other groups

Subject: RE: [linux-audio-dev] License Concerns about ladspa.h and GPL pro grams
From: MOULET Xavier FTRD/DMR/ISS (xavier.moulet_AT_rd.francetelecom.fr)
Date: Tue Mar 06 2001 - 14:21:57 EET


what about an GNU open content license ? I think this prevent making changes
, but allows forks (ie the name should change if you change anything.) Of
course, redistribution is allowed.

BTW, whose copyright should it be ? Who does that spec belongs to ?

These are not my employer's view, but mine.
> -----Message d'origine-----
> De : Paul Davis [mailto:pbd_AT_Op.Net]
> Envoyé : mardi 6 mars 2001 12:55
> À : linux-audio-dev_AT_ginette.musique.umontreal.ca
> Objet : Re: [linux-audio-dev] License Concerns about ladspa.h and GPL
> programs
>
>
> >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
>
> The problem is that we need to allow for distribution of the header
> file. Steinberg disallows this for VST, requiring that *everybody* who
> wants the VST SDK must get it from Steinberg. I don't see how to add
> copyright *and* the ability to freely copy and redistribute a header
> file without getting into the kinds of issues that the licenses cover.
>
> --p
>


New Message Reply About this list Date view Thread view Subject view Author view Other groups

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b28 : Tue Mar 06 2001 - 14:44:06 EET