On Mon, 07 Apr 2003 12:00:53 +0200, oliver thuns wrote Screenshots and audio demos! :] On a more general note - I find the best part of writing free audio software is hearing what people do with your code. When you hear music people have written, often doing thing you wouldn't have thought of with your software - that's the best bit. If people want to encourage open source development, then upload your tracks and tell the developers about it! Any progress on that linux audio hosting site? :) As for getting other developers involved - I've found that they often start out as users, and only really think about helping with the code when they have invested some time using the app, and see things that need fixing. cheers, dave

On Tue, 08 Apr 2003 20:56:43 +0900 Junichi Uekawa <dancer(a)netfort.gr.jp> wrote: Why not? I had a look at the license and it seems very much like the new BSD style license (no advertising) and therefore I believe is GPL compatible. Erik -- +-----------------------------------------------------------+ Erik de Castro Lopo nospam(a)mega-nerd.com (Yes it's valid) +-----------------------------------------------------------+ The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits.

On 09 Apr 2003 21:15:34 -0400 Nick <nicktsocanos(a)charter.net> wrote: IANAL but .... Yes. I believe that you can. The PortAudio license is BSDish (no advertising) which according to this: http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/license-list.html#GPLCompatibleLicenses is compatible with the GPL (and hence the LGPL). If each of those snippets are 1) bug fix patches sent to you or 2) short demo snippets posted to mailing lists or usenet or 3) small in comparison to the code they are going into then I don't think it is necessary to contact the authors. All of those aims are compatible with the GPL. However, the GPL does allow someone to modify it for their own purposes without distributing their changes (as soon as they distribute binaries, they must also provide source to the people the deistribute the binaries to). See above. Erik -- +-----------------------------------------------------------+ Erik de Castro Lopo nospam(a)mega-nerd.com (Yes it's valid) +-----------------------------------------------------------+ "If you need a piece of paper and a pen to explain it, then its not bleedin' obvious" -- Erik's First Law

On Thu 10/04/2003 07:41:58, Nick wrote: IANAL: I Am Not A Lawyer

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

Nick wrote: LGPL is a less strict GPL, which is often used for libraries. If you link against a GPL library your program have to be under the GPL license (or BSD style license). If you link against LGPL, you can use whatever license you want or closed source (see post from paul).

Hallo, smoerk hat gesagt: // smoerk wrote: Just to set this straight: ... or under about a dozen other popular licenses, including X11, Perl, Python etc. licenses. ciao -- Frank Barknecht _ ______footils.org__

this is a request, not a condition. therefore, it doesn't change the license in any way.

Nick (nicktsocanos(a)charter.net): Nick, I don't think anyone will protest if I say that the open source development community is always very happy to see more people release code under a free license. And of course, you are free to choose whatever license you wish when releasing your software. That said, I have two recommendations. First, if you choose to release under the GNU GPL, read and understand it, do not assume what it means. The GPL was written in a very clear language for programmers to be able to understand, and you should have no problems. If you instead use the GPL and assume it says things it doesn't, and state conflicting opinions about it in public, you may confuse developers who wish to use your code in their applications, or distributions that wish to ship your programs. Other developers know the GPL and know what their rights are, and these are very specific, and we rely on this when deciding what code we can use in our own projects. My second recommendation is that you carefully read the licenses of code that you use, such as the PortAudio libraries or the Jack libraries. When other developers release code, they wish their licenses to be respected, and they often take this very seriously. It's ok for you to choose whatever license you want for your code, but if your code depends on a library released under the GPL, this places certain restrictions on the licensing of your application. It is important to recognize this and respect it. Finally, in multiple posts you have asked about whether releasing under the GPL means that users cannot make commercial music. This is definitely not the case, for example, you can use the gcc compiler to compile commercial programs. Again though, I recommend you read the license. You've been very clear that you are "real mellow with this license stuff", and while I know you mean well, I think you should sit down, read the licenses, and make sure you're at least respecting those of the code you depend on, and letting others know how they can use your code. Hope that helps, -Billy

For something different I read this: (this list).. " Home page for the low-latency hard-realtime audio application gurus. The LAD group also develops API standards to promote interoperability between audio application .. " oops, I thought you were a bunch of hobbyist like me. I didn't realize this was for such serious talk. I'll leave this list be from here out, but thanks for your pointers and helping me get started. The thing is I am disabled, I sit at home all day, and program. I just want to be a part of something, share, and make a difference. My social security is pending. I will most likely not be able to work, but you never know, I may get better again. Anything is possible. So I need something to do while I am home all day, can't go out, have no means, have nobody to communicate with.. so that's my life, and I was happy to meet some people and talk about things I enjoyed doing. I think GNU license is fine, I am in compliance with it, and there is no reason for me not to use it or be a part of it. Whatever I release as GNU you may feel free to use under the GPL as it specifies. The GPL does not say you must release your modifications, it only says you must release them if you distribute a binary of the code. You may keep your modifications private provided you do not give the binary to another user (The GPL protects the user by ensuring the source is always available).This was my only real concern, because if someone releases a modified version, I want to ensure that it was not my changes associated with my project if a problem arises from it. See, I did read it a few times :) Appreciate your help list good bye I'll come back when I'm a guru too. -- Nick <nicktsocanos(a)charter.net>

On Sat, Apr 12, 2003 at 02:16:27AM -0400, Nick wrote: i think nearly everyone here is doing this stuff as a hobby. my definition of "guru" is "someone who knows a lot about a topic that i know a little about". By that definition, you are a guru. :-) so, stick around, there's room at the bar... --PW Paul Winkler http://www.slinkp.com Look! Up in the sky! It's CAPTAIN FROM PLANET POOTOOT! (random hero from isometric.spaceninja.com)