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 - 15:19:56 EET
Well, at the risk of offending every Linux afficionado on the planet -
can't you separate the ~specification~ into something that isn't a
header file? Is is so clever to have something defined by its
implementation file?
Dammit, why doesn't someone write a paper on it for CMJ? I have my own
interest in designing plugin frameworks, for all sorts of purposes not
addressed by LADSPA (or anything else out there), and I am just vain
enough to want to publish the odd paper - now, would you really want the
only reference to LADSPA in such a paper to be from me?
Richard Dobson
Paul Davis wrote:
>
>
> 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
-- 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 - 15:45:37 EET