Re: [linux-audio-dev] LADSPA License?

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

Subject: Re: [linux-audio-dev] LADSPA License?
From: Kai Vehmanen (kaiv_AT_wakkanet.fi)
Date: Mon May 07 2001 - 14:32:24 EEST


On Mon, 7 May 2001, Alexander Ehlert wrote:

> a couple of days ago we asked for the license conditions of ladspa.h.
> Unfortunately no one replied. As a consequence we had to remove ladspa.h
> from the debian package. I actually don't understand why it is not
> possible to make a clear statement about that issue?

Yes, this in indeed very unfortunate. I also had no other choice but to
remove ladspa.h from ecasound distribution before the 2.0.0 release. The
LADSPA header file has three copyright holders... Paul and Stefan have
already given their permission. But Richard Furse (who wrote most of it)
has not explicitly given the permission. My understanding is that Richard
is not yet sure about which licence to use. In other words, he would like
to ensure that also commercial apps can use the API. As ladspa.h is just a
header file, this makes the licensing issue a bit problematic (the same
derived-work GPL-thing again).

> If you want LADSPA to become a standard I think it's actually quite
> important to work out a license for this one before even thinking about
> the next API (LAAGA whatever..)

True. This was a mistake. We should have cleared this licensing thing
before doing anything else. But what's done is done, at the moment there's
nothing to do. Until Richard makes a statement, this issue will not go
forward. This also means that there is no use slowing down other projects
(like LAAGA) because of this. And yup, this time LGPL is already in the
draft 'laaga.h' file.

-- 
 http://www.eca.cx
 Audio software for Linux!


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

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b28 : Mon May 07 2001 - 13:59:52 EEST