Ross Bencina schrieb:
There are numerous active commercial applications which depend on
PortAudio.. it is far from dead and gone. Quite naturally I believe it
to be a technically superior solution to RtAudio, primarily because
(last time I checked) RtAudio does not attempt to solve many of
Alexander Terekhov wrote:
On 2/18/06, olive [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I think the following links might interest you.
Yeah.
All complain about the GPL are dismissed one after the other.
http://hearsay.com/wp-hdcarchives/cases/wallace_v_fsf-28nov2005.pdf
Here the judge rejected a
This one time, at band camp, Junichi Uekawa said:
However, portaudio looks non-free to me.
http://www.portaudio.com/license.html: * Any person wishing to
distribute modifications to the Software is requested to send the
modifications to the original developer so that they can be
Let me say as a long time member of this list and user of Portaudio and
its proponent in many projects, there was a period of a year where this
project was a big time user of Ambien. It was asleep for the most
part. A few folks came along and woke it up.
Flex Radio depends heavily on
Ross Bencina wrote:
PortAudio upstream was planning to change the license to clarify
this, but I don't think they ever got around to tracking down all the
contributors in order to do this.
I think there was never any clarity on what the license should be
changed to. I am in touch with all of
On Monday 20 February 2006 00:46, Matt Brubeck was like:
Any person wishing to distribute modifications to the Software is
requested BUT NOT REQUIRED to send the modifications to the original
developer so that they can be incorporated into the canonical version.
Messy.
Is the word
Hi Markus
First of all, thanks for taking the time to put your concerns in writing --
some of these issues are news to me. I've received a lot of traffic over
this issuein the last 24 hours and I'll have get back to you with some more
detailed responses to the strategic issues, however I
Hi Matt
I would like to see PortAudio use an unmodified X11 license (widely
used, and identical to the current PortAudio license except for the
non-binding request clause). Rather than appearing in the license's
list of conditions, this clause could appear in the documentation, or
any other
On Mon, 20 Feb 2006, Ross Bencina wrote:
[someone said]
Or, if the request clause is not removed from the license, I would
like to see it clarified as follows:
Any person wishing to distribute modifications to the Software is
requested BUT NOT REQUIRED to send the modifications to the
Markus:
Thanks so much for your comments. I will say more below about our code,
but I think you are right to critisize our process. Personally, I'd like
to see us using a bug tracking system and a better source code management
and patch management system. I don't have enough expereience in
10 matches
Mail list logo
