11 Nov
2002
11 Nov
'02
12:48 p.m.
Don't worry David, I think we are wasting our precious time with these
talks (but it is interesting anyway :-) )
Regarding source and binary code:
Being or app opensource, we have the advantage that the source code
does not constitute a runnable application and this provides several
legal advantages.
Just to cite an example:
The freetype library http://www.freetype.org/ contains a bytecode
interpreter for font hinting on which Apple holds a patent.
But they can distribute the source because it is disabled in the default
Makefile. This makes me think that opensource software that might
contain "controversial" code can always be shipped in sourceform since
it is not the final product since only a "description of it".
(where the compiler turns this description into the final product).
back to coding .... (guess what ? :-) )
cheers,
Benno
David Burrows wrote:
Send the source code to me and I will release it. Why?
Because
I believe what I said in the above paragraph is true. It is immoral to
have software patents, not violate them. Especially ones as
absurdly simple as this. How could they proove that you did not
come up with the idea yourself? Whatever happened to innocent until
proven guilty
--
http://linuxsampler.sourceforge.net
Building a professional grade software sampler for Linux.
Please help us designing and developing it.