On Thu, 2011-02-24 at 10:48 +0000, Chris Cannam wrote:
> On 23 February 2011 23:55, David Robillard <d@email-addr-hidden> wrote:
> > They're all in my LAD meta-repository:
>
> Ah, externals.
>
> LGPL I see -- I've no problem with that in principle, but it would
> complicate matters a bit (both Dataquay and Redland being BSD).
I switched Serd and Sord to 2-clause BSD. Enjoy. The license header is
bigger and uglier and has a bunch of lawyer boiler-plate yelling in it,
which I am not aesthetically please with at all... :)
This made me notice something though: lv2.h itself is LGPL (inherited
from ladspa.h). So, if you're implementing an LV2 host there's
inherently LGPL involved anyway.
I am fully on the pro-GPL card-carrying FSF member team (Affero GPL3 it
all, comrades!), but a decent argument could be made for lv2.h having a
more liberal license, since it just defines an interface which we want
implemented as widely as possible...
That said, I can't think of an actual reason why LGPL complicates
matters...
-dr
_______________________________________________
Linux-audio-dev mailing list
Linux-audio-dev@email-addr-hidden
http://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-dev
Received on Sat Feb 26 00:15:01 2011
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Sat Feb 26 2011 - 00:15:01 EET