On Thu, 2011-02-24 at 10:48 +0000, Chris Cannam wrote: > On 23 February 2011 23:55, David Robillard <[email protected]> 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 [email protected] http://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-dev
