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