Hence my previous point. It should be made available under a clear and simple to understand license. Not 2 or 3 or exceptions in FAQ... GPL, but not for FreeBSD. You can't impose such restrictions in a FAQ but provide a license that says otherwise, it's not legally binding (or productive for that matter). It can't be GPL but not for FreeBSD. You have a different license and HAVE to put that in the license.
Licensing should be made clear on the page: This code is now available under the terms of the INSERT LICENSE HERE. Licensing is quite a complex issue in this case. If you go GPL, it's not compatible with CDDL. So you can't include that in OpenSolaris (or *BSD for other reasons). If you go CDDL, you can't include that in Linux. If you'd want any support from the BSD crowd, it would have to be licensed under a MIT or BSD license, or they simply won't include it in base, and develop their own sound systems in parallel. As for Linux, they already have ALSA, expect heavy competition. If this was a common framework, portable to every UNIX and *NIX operating system, available under a MIT or BSD style license, with a common API it could prove to be quite a huge step for sound support on UNIX. Don't scare developers away trying to figure out if it's legal or not to use your product.. I'm not saying this out of love for some BSD or whatever, I'd just like to see OpenSound succeed as a common UNIX framework for sound. This message posted from opensolaris.org _______________________________________________ opensolaris-discuss mailing list [email protected]
