Re: [linux-audio-dev] JACK and licenses: a very important question

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

Subject: Re: [linux-audio-dev] JACK and licenses: a very important question
From: DAVID G MATTHEWS (dgm4+@pitt.edu)
Date: Sun Nov 11 2001 - 21:34:37 EET


This is a tough one. On the one hand, why should writers of non-free
software be able to benefit from your hard work? On the other, yes, I
would like to see JACK become as ubquitous as possible, including in
non-free software. I say go LGPL. I don't remember the terms of the LGPL
off the top of my head, but doesn't it require that actual changes to the
code be made free, but that non-free programs can incorporate the code in
its unchanged form? Or am I making that up? (If I was, is there some
other license that works that way? Sounds like a pretty good
compromise..)
-dgm

On Sun, 11 Nov 2001, Sebastien Metrot wrote:

> I personally prefer the LGPL for libraries and JACK seems to be one.
> But it's your code isn't it? Itsn't it up to you to choose then?
>
> Sebastien
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Paul Davis" <pbd_AT_Op.Net>
> To: <linux-audio-dev_AT_music.columbia.edu>
> Sent: Sunday, November 11, 2001 5:43 PM
> Subject: [linux-audio-dev] JACK and licenses: a very important question
>
>
> > friends - there is an important question to be made about the
> > licensing for JACK. i suspect the answer will be simple for most of
> > us, but it needs to be asked.
> >
> > right now, the JACK source code is released under the GPL. this would
> > prohibit non-free programs from using JACK. it therefore seems more
> > appropriate for me to change the license to the LGPL. a small part of
> > me is resistant to that idea - i think that JACK is an amazing idea
> > and i don't see why we should allow people who don't play in the free
> > software arena to benefit. but this rapidly appears as an example of
> > cutting off one's nose to spite one's face - if Emagic released Logic
> > for Linux tomorrow, wouldn't we want them to be able to use JACK as
> > well?
> >
> > so, are there are any arguments against using LGPL?
> >
> > --p
> >
>
>


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

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b28 : Sun Nov 11 2001 - 21:34:24 EET