On Mon, Nov 14, 2011 at 10:28 AM, Paul Davis <[email protected]>wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 14, 2011 at 1:12 PM, Iain Duncan <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > HI Dave, I would def be more interested in checking it out if it were > LGPL > > or MIT or somesuch. As I'm sure you know, Csound went LGPL a number of > years > > ago now, and that definitely increased uptake in the long run. Like > Harry, I > > just never know what use I might put some code to, so have a bit of a > > kneejerk be-careful reaction to GPL. > > just to be clear, CSound went LGPL *from* the ridiculous "MIT > educational license". that was a license that made its source code all > but unusable (and at the very least, extremely unclear as to its > usability). > Yes, the old csound license was a source of pain and agnst for sure. I just meant to point out that LGPL was chosen specifically so that the engine & new API could be used in commercial products, and I think that has been a really good move. I'm sure that the csound~ object for Max resulted in a lot of interest, and I expect Csound For Live to do the same. iain
_______________________________________________ Linux-audio-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-dev
