Subject: Re: [linux-audio-dev] License Concerns about ladspa.h and GPL programs
From: Paul Davis (pbd_AT_Op.Net)
Date: Tue Mar 06 2001 - 17:42:37 EET
Richard writes:
>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?
No, I think the point is that this is an API designed by (some of) the
programmers who plan to use it, and as such, we know that writing the
spec as a header file is the surest way to avoid mis-translations and
confusion between the "specification" and an implementation.
>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?
Sure, why not ?
Xavier asked about the copyright. Its held by Richard (Furse), Stefan
(Westerfeld) and myself, who were the three people who actually
contributed text to the file.
--p
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b28 : Tue Mar 06 2001 - 18:11:08 EET