26 Feb
2011
26 Feb
'11
1:54 a.m.
On Fri, 2011-02-25 at 23:17 +0000, Chris Cannam wrote:
We could attempt to contact everyone involved and get approval to switch
it and/or absolve themselves of copyright on it...
The LGPL is wonderful. It lets you write a library that has the GPL
benefits (i.e. you can't take my code and proprietary-ize it without
sharing), while allowing proprietary projects to make use of the
library.
In a world free of selfish dickheads, public domain would be all we
need. In this one, the LGPL is nice :)
-dr
On 25 Feb 2011 18:34, "David Robillard" <d(a)drobilla.net> wrote:
I like the apache 2.0 one because it's pretty and short and free of
lawyer. Alas, it's incompatible with (L)GPLv2... technically I could
make a similar header myself and use it, but there's no decent somewhat
canonical URI to refer to a BSD license I can find.
Of course we're all plenty used to just mentally skipping all the
boilerplate, but I like pretty things anyway :)
I switched Serd and Sord to 2-clause BSD. Enjoy.
Thanks! I hope to.
The license header is
bigger and uglier and has a bunch of lawyer boiler-plate yelling in
it,
which I am not aesthetically please with at
all... :)
I've always rather liked the look of the BSD boilerplate. This made me
notice something though: lv2.h itself is LGPL
(inherited
from ladspa.h). So, if you're implementing an
LV2 host there's
inherently LGPL involved anyway.
For me that's OK, an LV2 implementation would be of rather different
purpose from a general store implementation. Though I can imagine
others finding it difficult -- I've noticed some confusion about what
exactly the LGPL means for use of the LADSPA header in the past. I am fully on
the pro-GPL card-carrying FSF member team
I can see many cases for GPL libraries and BSD libraries, but I've not
so often been convinced by the use of the LGPL.