Re: [LAU] [semi-OT] Licences and your opinion and experience

On 11/25/2013 06:54 PM, Carlos sanchiavedraz wrote: [..] interesting breakdown. You're looking at this from the top, right? Most restrictive license per project? I wonder if it would makes sense detail this further. e.g lines-of-code per license. I suppose the picture is also somewhat incomplete because you did not include libraries which are used by many of the projects. e.g. LV2 SDK is MIT, libjack LGPLv2, vamp-plugin SDK 4-clause BSD,.. (no guarantee, that's just from the top of my head). If you multiply the use-count of these libraries by the number of projects that use them, I expect they will dominate GPL projects. The resulting app will still be GPL (or any other more restrictive license) and also the ratio 'lines-of-code per license' as well as 'projects per license' will remain unchanged. [..] While the vast majority of Ardour's own source is GPL-2+, Ardour3 is effectively GPL-3+ because it includes some code under LGPL-3+. http://anonscm.debian.org/gitweb/?p=pkg-multimedia/ardour3.git;a=blob;f=deb… has a complete breakdown. [..] I suppose it makes no difference for the vast amount of linux-audio apps. I still see GPL-2 vs GPL-3 as a matter of choice! v3 is not better just because it has a higher number or is newer. e.g. maybe some people do want their synth to be included in some commercial product. The GPLv3 does make this much harder for most vendors (ie. they'd need to publish their build-stack). A reasoning pro GPLv2 would be for example: "I don't care how they build it, I don't want to tinker or hack it and rather just want to play the instrument. But if they change the synth itself, the must to publish the changes." 2c, robin