14 Nov
2011
14 Nov
'11
7:45 p.m.
On Mon, Nov 14, 2011 at 10:28 AM, Paul Davis <paul(a)linuxaudiosystems.com>wrote;wrote:
On Mon, Nov 14, 2011 at 1:12 PM, Iain Duncan
<iainduncanlists(a)gmail.com>
wrote:
Yes, the old csound license was a source of pain and agnst for sure. I just
meant to point out that LGPL was chosen specifically so that the engine &
new API could be used in commercial products, and I think that has been a
really good move. I'm sure that the csound~ object for Max resulted in a
lot of interest, and I expect Csound For Live to do the same.
iain
HI Dave, I would def be more interested in
checking it out if it were
LGPL
or MIT or somesuch. As I'm sure you know,
Csound went LGPL a number of
years
ago now, and that definitely increased uptake in
the long run. Like
Harry, I
just never know what use I might put some code
to, so have a bit of a
kneejerk be-careful reaction to GPL.
just to be clear, CSound went LGPL *from* the ridiculous "MIT
educational license". that was a license that made its source code all
but unusable (and at the very least, extremely unclear as to its
usability).