[LAU] [semi-OT] Licences and your opinion and experience
csanchezgs at gmail.com
Tue Nov 26 13:00:45 UTC 2013
Hello again, Mr. Robin
2013/11/25 Robin Gareus <robin at gareus.org>:
> 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
> per license.
> 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).
That's right, Robin, I mentioned "quick search". So therefore, please
forgive not being complete.
> 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 didn't dive to such detail, good to know. And nice resource about
this matter that you link.
>> 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."
That is what I somehow supposed, maybe people are not so strict about
somebody/some-enterprise including their sw and having benefit from
it. In someway, I concur with that, even when I know some of them
(enterprises) just "vampirize" and have no return (support, money,
code) to the community at least.
Thanks again, Robin.
* Musix GNU+Linux
More information about the Linux-audio-user