> >You *may* have a problem there, because I suspect that set of restrictions > >isn't compatible with the GPL. > > As I understand it though, his code isn't based on anything GPL'd, so he > should be able to put whatever restrictions on it as he likes -- PROVIDED > THAT it is possible to compile WinCoupe without sound support.
Not only is it possible to compile WinCoupe without my sound support ... my sound support is a separate DLL. So compiling WinCoupe is an entirely different project to compiling my SAASound emulation. (Not that it /should/ be this way, necessarily. However, I know for a fact that my emulation support currently only builds as a WIN32 dll and, more than that, the sound emulation probably only compiles under VC++5. The majority of the source is probably portable, it should only be the DLL export stuff that needs rewriting for different OSes). What I actually _want_ though is for people to be able to experiment with building my emulation support for different OSes, providing that I still get to say "yep, that is a valid code base for a Linux SAASound library" or "nope, I don't like what you've done". I know it's all pie anyway because the only person likely to develop the code is me, and WinCoupe doesn't run under Linux anyway. But I hope you probably know what I mean. > Personally I'd start with BSD as a base, and then rewrite or reword > whatever sections were appropriate. I don't have a copy of the BSD license > to hand, but this sounds like a reasonable progression from what most > people refer to as the advertising clause. > > -- Andrew Collier ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) -- I shall take a look. Ta. In the meantime, my ultra-restrictively-licensed version of the SAASound source is now up at http://www.geocities.com/stripwax/saasource.zip d a v e
