[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: ladspa.h -- a plugin API.

On Fri, 9 Mar 2001, Junichi Uekawa wrote:

>In Tue, 6 Mar 2001 12:47:32 -0500 Brian cum veritate scripsit :
>I am cc'ing Richard Furse, because he would probably be interested in this thread.
>To summarize, the possible licenses are :
>a) LGPL
>b) BSD style license without the advertizing clause
>c) XFree86 license
>d) something new which is GPL compatible (not recommended)
>What would be the possible problem with making it LGPL ?

It doesn't precisely define when code is exempt from it's "lesser viral"
clause.  Basically, the GPL is "viral" in the fact that all code linked
to it must be licensed under terms no stricter than the GPL.  The LGPL
states that just linking against a library is not enough to trigger the
above, but ...

   When a "work that uses the Library" uses material from a header file
   that is part of the Library, the object code for the work may be a
   derivative work of the Library even though the source code is not.
   Whether this is true is especially significant if the work can be
   linked without the Library, or if the work is itself a library. The
   threshold for this to be true is not precisely defined by law.
(which is IMHO a copout: the law defining it is the LGPL contract...)

   If such an object file uses only numerical parameters, data structure
   layouts and accessors, and small macros and small inline functions
   (ten lines or less in length), then the use of the object file is
   unrestricted, regardless of whether it is legally a derivative work.
   (Executables containing this object code plus portions of the Library
   will still fall under Section 6.)

>For example, would a BSD-licensed program be able to #include <ladspa.h>
>and still stay BSD ?

Unequivocally yes.  A post-1999 BSDL is covered under the "terms no
stricter" than the GPL above, so is a non-issue.  The issue is with
licenses stricter than the GPL.  The GPL says "NO!", the LGPL says "yes,
but only if you don't get too deep in linking", and the BSDL and X11L say

>> On Wed, Mar 07, 2001 at 12:22:19AM +0900, Junichi Uekawa wrote:
>> > ladspa.h is code, and the API specification of a plugin API,
>> > and currenty does not have a display of what license it is distributed
>> under.
>> >
>> > People in the <linux-audio-dev@ginette.musique.umontreal.ca> list
>> > are discussing what license to distribute it under.
>> >
>> > What should be the best license to suggest ?
>> > It's used in some GPL programs.
>> >
>> The XFree86 license, or a similar BSD style license with no advertising
>> clause would work just fine. These licenses are compatible with the GPL,
>> LGPL, and just about every other Free Software license.
>dancer@debian.org : Junichi Uekawa   http://www.netfort.gr.jp/~dancer
>GPG Fingerprint : 17D6 120E 4455 1832 9423  7447 3059 BF92 CD37 56F4

Here is wisdom.  Let him that hath wisdom count the number of the BSD: for
it is the number of a man; and his number is VI VI VI.
(ir-reve-rent-lations 13:17-19)
Who is John Galt?  galt@inconnu.isu.edu, that's who!

Reply to: