On Fri, 2011-02-25 at 23:17 +0000, Chris Cannam wrote: > > On 25 Feb 2011 18:34, "David Robillard" <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > I switched Serd and Sord to 2-clause BSD. Enjoy. > > Thanks! I hope to. > > > 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... :) > > I've always rather liked the look of the BSD boilerplate.
I like the apache 2.0 one because it's pretty and short and free of lawyer. Alas, it's incompatible with (L)GPLv2... technically I could make a similar header myself and use it, but there's no decent somewhat canonical URI to refer to a BSD license I can find. Of course we're all plenty used to just mentally skipping all the boilerplate, but I like pretty things anyway :) > > 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. > > For me that's OK, an LV2 implementation would be of rather different > purpose from a general store implementation. Though I can imagine > others finding it difficult -- I've noticed some confusion about what > exactly the LGPL means for use of the LADSPA header in the past. We could attempt to contact everyone involved and get approval to switch it and/or absolve themselves of copyright on it... > > I am fully on the pro-GPL card-carrying FSF member team > > I can see many cases for GPL libraries and BSD libraries, but I've not > so often been convinced by the use of the LGPL. The LGPL is wonderful. It lets you write a library that has the GPL benefits (i.e. you can't take my code and proprietary-ize it without sharing), while allowing proprietary projects to make use of the library. In a world free of selfish dickheads, public domain would be all we need. In this one, the LGPL is nice :) -dr _______________________________________________ Linux-audio-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-dev
