On Monday 02 June 2008 22:09:27 Hannu Savolainen wrote: > Yair K. wrote: > > On Monday 02 June 2008 21:37:13 Hannu Savolainen wrote: > > > >> Romain Beauxis wrote: > >> > >>> Le Monday 02 June 2008 04:04:51 Hannu Savolainen, vous avez écrit : > >>> > >>> > >>>>> First of all, concerning the licence: > >>>>> * Is it the whole code GPLed ? (naive question) > >>>>> I mean that even if the global licence is GPL, there could be other > >>>>> parts > >>>>> which are not GPL. This could also include the documentation that could > >>>>> be GFDL for instance.. Those licencing questions are very important for > >>>>> an inclusion, and often thake time to check (and are really boring too), > >>>>> so your help is welcome here :) > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>> There are some closed source packages in OSS but they are not included > >>>> in the tarballs. So all drivers included in the GPL source package are > >>>> under GPL. Some header files and/or sample programs may be under the BSD > >>>> license but all this code is for user land only. > >>>> > >>>> > >>> Well, that's what I was afraid of.. The debian/copyright file has to > >>> report > >>> each file's licence if it differs from main licence. I means I'll have to > >>> go > >>> through each of them to check the licence.. > >>> > >>> > >> There is no need for that. Just don't include anything that is located > >> under the tutorials/ or utils/ subdirectories. All the other files are > >> under GPL. > >> > > > > What about include/soundcard.h? > > > soundcard.h is under GPL too. However in the hg tree it says released > under BSD.
It would be nice if it were under BSD. Anyone who really wants a BSD licensed version can get it anyway, and it stops silly questions about what happens if apps use it (e.g. http://4front-tech.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=6671#6671 ). Yours, Yair K. _______________________________________________ oss-devel mailing list oss-devel@mailman.opensound.com http://mailman.opensound.com/mailman/listinfo/oss-devel
