Re: [LAD] RDF libraries, was Re: [ANN] IR: LV2 Convolution Reverb

On Fri, 2011-02-25 at 20:44 -0500, Paul Davis wrote: True, but there's good reasons those requirements are there. Perhaps there is use for a "LGPL without relink" requirements, but... oh well. (Obligatory disclaimer: I am not a lawyer, and the following is not legal advice) Note that relinking is inherently trivial with the typical use of LV2, since it's an interface for dynamically loaded modules, but it is possible to use the LV2 interface statically, which (though pretty weird) might make sense in some embedded scenarios. The LGPL is a tool for keeping your library implementation free. For lv2.h, there isn't even an implementation to keep free. It's all a bit silly anyway; you could easily take an LV2 plugin binary and clean-room reverse engineer a compatible spec without having ever even heard about lv2.h, let alone seen or copied it. Restrictive licenses have no place in generic(*) plugin APIs! (yes, I'm looking at you, Steinberg). A more liberal license seems more appropriate, particularly since widespread adoption of LV2, including by proprietary software, is desirable, and a win for free software (and everyone). If this is a blocker for implementing LV2 on mobile devices or whatever, that's a problem. The license is just being a nuisance and hindering progress without protecting anything anyway. If we want to do it, this is the copyright situation: Copyright (C) 2000-2002 Richard W.E. Furse, Paul Barton-Davis, Stefan Westerfeld. Copyright (C) 2006-2010 Steve Harris, David Robillard. Everyone here is still active, except perhaps Richard? IIRC his disappearance became a problem with LADSPA ID allocation... So, questions: 1) Does everyone present support making lv2.h 2-clause BSD? Some other alternative, perhaps? (you can also explicitly absolve yourself of the copyright if you'd prefer) 2) Is Richard contactable? If not, what was his contribution to ladspa.h, and has it actually made it in to lv2.h? Much has been removed (lv2.h is roughly half the size of ladspa.h), it's quite possible it has not. Personally, I could go either way. I'm down if everyone else is. -dr (* Note the "generic" part is important, since module and host are not derivative works of each other, which is not true of all modules)