10 Apr
2003
10 Apr
'03
9:38 a.m.
Nick wrote:
the one problem with the LGPL is that it has an additional
stipulation. the user must be able to relink the non-LGPL'ed parts of
the program with a new version of the LGPL'ed part. this is quite
burdensome for many programs. otoh, it only says "possible", it
doesn't say (i think) that you have provide the mechanism to do it
(i.e. they have to understand the linker, makefiles, objectfiles,
etc).
--p
I really don't know about the license. I had
it as LGPL, but there are
issues I don't understand. Like, can someone make commercial music with
LGPL license? Can using Port Audio with LGPL possible? I have code
snippets from other sources, and can't contact the authors. Can I make
it LGPL or GPL or not, I don't know.
I want the license to be, it is free, it is open, you can use it for
whatever purpose you like. I am not responsible for the content of your
music, nor do I make warranties about fit of use. You must honor the
license and provide all source code if you modify it back to the
project. I want it to be open both source, and also freedom to express
yourself and use it commercially for music too. I want the source code
open so people can modify it or work on it, and it can grow.
LGPL does exactly what you want. You are free to use it for everything,
but you have publish the source, if you modified it and released it to
the public. IIRC LGPL is compatible with every open source license.