I'm not maintaining the Loris stuff any more, so that is moot with me. liblo, though -- ouch!

I oppose changing Csound to the GPL because I view Csound as more useful to more people under the LGPL. I believe the LGPL is actually "freer" in practice because you can use it in more contexts, and of course you still have to make the source available and you can make derived works with it.

Regards,
Mike

-----Original Message-----
>From: Anthony Kozar 
>Sent: Jul 9, 2007 4:16 PM
>To: New Csound Developer list 
>Subject: [Cs-dev] More licensing
>
>The following are under the GPL and thus require that Csound be converted to
>GPL to link to them:
>
>liblo
>Loris
>
>The following are under the LGPL (or dual-licensed with LGPL as an option):
>
>ALSA
>Jack
>FLTK         (has some modifications to the license though)
>fluidsynth
>DSSI
>LADSPA
>
>
>Also, we should be distributing source code from our Sourceforge page for
>any GPL or LGPL libraries that we are compiling ourselves and providing as
>binaries in Csound packages.  (i.e. many of the above)
>
>The following seem OK to me to link or include with Csound without any
>requirements for redistributing source code or changing Csound's license:
>
>Python (both opcodes and interface library)
>Lua
>Tcl/Tk
>PortAudio (with the revised license)
>PortMIDI  (with the revised license)
>
>
>Whether the Java interface is legal or not would depend on the Java
>distribution I suppose, and I am not going to attempt to make any judgement
>about it.
>
>Thus, to summarize, the current problems include liblo, Loris, STK, and the
>VST stuff.
>
>Anthony Kozar
>anthonykozar AT sbcglobal DOT net
>http://anthonykozar.net/
>
>
>
>-------------------------------------------------------------------------
>This SF.net email is sponsored by DB2 Express
>Download DB2 Express C - the FREE version of DB2 express and take
>control of your XML. No limits. Just data. Click to get it now.
>http://sourceforge.net/powerbar/db2/
>_______________________________________________
>Csound-devel mailing list
>Csound-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
>https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/csound-devel




-------------------------------------------------------------------------
This SF.net email is sponsored by DB2 Express
Download DB2 Express C - the FREE version of DB2 express and take
control of your XML. No limits. Just data. Click to get it now.
http://sourceforge.net/powerbar/db2/
_______________________________________________
Csound-devel mailing list
Csound-devel@lists.sourceforge.net

Michael Gogins wrote on 7/9/07 5:28 PM:

> I oppose changing Csound to the GPL because I view Csound as more useful to
> more people under the LGPL. I believe the LGPL is actually "freer" in practice
> because you can use it in more contexts, and of course you still have to make
> the source available and you can make derived works with it.

I agree with this completely.  The LGPL is less restrictive than the GPL,
and I am rather tired of not being able to combine GPL libraries with other
open source projects that I work on because I do not wish to change the
licenses to the GPL (or can't).  I prefer the BSD license myself but it does
not prevent wholesale incorporation into proprietary products, and I can
understand why some people want to not allow that.

We do not have to change the Csound license for every "copy" of Csound just
to satisfy the requirements of a GPL plugin such as OSC or Loris.  Only the
binary distributions that include those plugins would have to be changed.
We could continue distributing the source code and packages without any
GPL'd components under the LGPL.  I am now considering removing the Loris
opcodes from the MacOS 9 package unless we can get an exception from its
developers.

(snipped 4 more paragraphs about why I think this is an absurd and confusing
thing to have to do ...)

Anthony


-------------------------------------------------------------------------
This SF.net email is sponsored by DB2 Express
Download DB2 Express C - the FREE version of DB2 express and take
control of your XML. No limits. Just data. Click to get it now.
http://sourceforge.net/powerbar/db2/
_______________________________________________
Csound-devel mailing list
Csound-devel@lists.sourceforge.net

I am very unclear about all this licensing stuff; is a BSD licence
acceptable for libraries that Csound uses?  I have been using a
different OSC library in another (proprietary) project and if BSD is OK
will change from liblo to it -- cannot remember its name but it was
from Ross Bencina I think.
==John ffitch

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
This SF.net email is sponsored by DB2 Express
Download DB2 Express C - the FREE version of DB2 express and take
control of your XML. No limits. Just data. Click to get it now.
http://sourceforge.net/powerbar/db2/
_______________________________________________
Csound-devel mailing list
Csound-devel@lists.sourceforge.net

Absolutely.  The BSD license (without the old #3 "advertising" clause) and
the MIT "expat" license (eg. X11) are very permissive licenses that are
completely compatible with the LGPL and GPL.  They also allow incorporation
into proprietary products without releasing any source code.

(To the best of my knowledge):

With an LGPL program, if the BSD code is kept in a separate shared library
(or vice versa), then no changes to either license are required.  If some
BSD code is mixed with LGPL code, then the resulting combined work must be
licensed under the LGPL (with the BSD code keeping its original license
too).

With a GPL program or module, no matter how the BSD code is incorporated or
linked with it, the entire result must be licensed under the GPL (with the
BSD code keeping its original license too).

Hope this clears it up. **

Anthony

** My opinions here are based on my understanding of the statements that the
Free Software Foundation makes on their web site regarding their licenses.
Whether they are legally correct or not is sometimes debated and could of
course vary between countries.  IANAL, blah blah blah ...

jpff wrote on 7/10/07 12:34 AM:

> I am very unclear about all this licensing stuff; is a BSD licence
> acceptable for libraries that Csound uses?  I have been using a
> different OSC library in another (proprietary) project and if BSD is OK
> will change from liblo to it -- cannot remember its name but it was
> from Ross Bencina I think.
> ==John ffitch


-------------------------------------------------------------------------
This SF.net email is sponsored by DB2 Express
Download DB2 Express C - the FREE version of DB2 express and take
control of your XML. No limits. Just data. Click to get it now.
http://sourceforge.net/powerbar/db2/
_______________________________________________
Csound-devel mailing list
Csound-devel@lists.sourceforge.net