[LAU] [semi-OT] Licences and your opinion and experience
robin at gareus.org
Mon Nov 25 19:17:36 UTC 2013
On 11/25/2013 06:54 PM, Carlos sanchiavedraz wrote:
> I've made a quick search in Sourceforge to see the number of projects
> with each licence and related to Audio:
interesting breakdown. You're looking at this from the top, right? Most
restrictive license per project?
I wonder if it would makes sense detail this further. e.g lines-of-code
I suppose the picture is also somewhat incomplete because you did not
include libraries which are used by many of the projects. e.g. LV2 SDK
is MIT, libjack LGPLv2, vamp-plugin SDK 4-clause BSD,.. (no guarantee,
that's just from the top of my head).
If you multiply the use-count of these libraries by the number of
projects that use them, I expect they will dominate GPL projects.
The resulting app will still be GPL (or any other more restrictive
license) and also the ratio 'lines-of-code per license' as well as
'projects per license' will remain unchanged.
> * GPL2/GPL2+: they are a vast majority, [..] Ardour [..]
While the vast majority of Ardour's own source is GPL-2+, Ardour3 is
effectively GPL-3+ because it includes some code under LGPL-3+.
has a complete breakdown.
> I thought at the beginning that choosing GPLv3 was the way to go
> nowadays: It's newer, and takes into account problems like
> "Tivoization", patents and stuff.
I suppose it makes no difference for the vast amount of linux-audio apps.
I still see GPL-2 vs GPL-3 as a matter of choice! v3 is not better just
because it has a higher number or is newer.
e.g. maybe some people do want their synth to be included in some
commercial product. The GPLv3 does make this much harder for most
vendors (ie. they'd need to publish their build-stack). A reasoning pro
GPLv2 would be for example: "I don't care how they build it, I don't
want to tinker or hack it and rather just want to play the instrument.
But if they change the synth itself, the must to publish the changes."
More information about the Linux-audio-user