Drew Hess wrote:
Well, I think going GPL would be too much, only GPL softwares could use the library. BSD is too much too because changes in the software world (improvements, bugs, backdoors) would not be available to you. Only the hardware world is a problem. And usually when they support a format they're ready to pay for the development and even the port ot their architecture.Anyway, consider the chances that someone will use the BSD license to make proprietary changes to FLAC. Weigh that against the chances that FLAC
I use a lot the SciTE editor which is BSD-like. Neil Hodgson is working full time on it because some company use his (BSDed) libraries in their closed software. And they pay the development for improvements or modifications. And that's not even in the hardware world !
I think for hardware, dual-licensing is the way to go. You can use a BSD license as the second license, but only available to people who pay (or any other reward, or nothing) for that version. Otherwise you can create your own one (maybe with the help of a lawyer). Just put that clearly in your webpage and sources. Noone will be scared of your code anymore :)
A notice like : "Versions of this code are available under another license on demand".
What keeps people around Xiph from using FLAC in OGG already and report bugs ? If marketing is what you're looking for it's OK. But that would be bad to consider people around Xiph so close minded that they would use your codec only if you are part of Xiph... *grin*will be an even bigger success if you go with Xiph, and make your choice.I think it's a no-brainer. Go with Xiph! It'd be a great addition to Ogg. Just be ready for lots more bug reports :)
-------------------------------------------------------
This sf.net email is sponsored by:ThinkGeek
Welcome to geek heaven.
http://thinkgeek.com/sf
_______________________________________________
Flac-dev mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flac-dev
