Paul Davis wrote: > > friends - there is an important question to be made about the > licensing for JACK. i suspect the answer will be simple for most of > us, but it needs to be asked. > > right now, the JACK source code is released under the GPL. this would > prohibit non-free programs from using JACK. it therefore seems more > appropriate for me to change the license to the LGPL. a small part of > me is resistant to that idea - i think that JACK is an amazing idea > and i don't see why we should allow people who don't play in the free > software arena to benefit. but this rapidly appears as an example of > cutting off one's nose to spite one's face - if Emagic released Logic > for Linux tomorrow, wouldn't we want them to be able to use JACK as > well? > > so, are there are any arguments against using LGPL? > > --p
gpl would be more rmsy of course, and it does feel a little strange to allow all those disinterested closed-source vendors to benefit from jack. otoh, *if* the big commercial guys ever port their stuff and it does hook into jack smoothly, this will pay us back with so many new users, bug reporters and coders that it will most probably be worth it to play nice and defensive now and lgpl the client-side code. as for the jack engine, i'd say gpl it. (provided that this strict separation is feasible in your implementation.) j�rn -- J�rn Nettingsmeier home://Kurf�rstenstr.49.45138.Essen.Germany phone://+49.201.491621 http://spunk.dnsalias.org http://www.linuxdj.com/audio/lad/
