On Tue, Dec 10, 2002 at 09:25:15PM +0000, Nathaniel Virgo wrote: > programs. This means that if a commercial program comes along it won't be > able to use the library, and anyone who wanted to use that program would have > to manually keep loads of files in sync like we do now.
Like I said before, I'm very well aware of what it means for the library to be under the GPL. I'm aware that proprietary (who says that free software isn't "commercial"? Have a look at Red Hat's stock quotes) programs are not allowed to link to libladcca. Like I said, this is *why* I chose to release under the GPL. The issue is: what is best for free audio software (on linux or any other system.) Will it aid free audio software by having a proprietary applications like, eg cubase or cakewalk or reason, ported to a free operating system like gnu/linux, and remain proprietary? I think not. If cubase was ported to gnu/linux, its users would still be told "you cannot change this program." What good will this do free audio software? It may bring more users in to using other free software such as jack, portaudio, ardour, sweep, alsa, etc, but if such a thing ever happened, I very much fear that it would make the linux-audio-dev world a place where proprietary licenses were dominant. Do I want cubase to be ported to gnu/linux? No, I do not. Not if it's under a proprietary license. Of course, I realise that I am (unfortunately for software freedom) in a minority here. I also realise that the license that libladcca is released under will have little or no effect on the issue, but I'm not quite prepared to put a stamp of approval on proprietary audio software, either, and that's what I would feel like I was doing if I released ladcca under the LGPL. Regardless, this is a non-issue for the moment, as, thankfully, freely licensed audio software abounds atm. If/when the situation changes, it may be prudent to readdress the issue, but for the moment, I think the GPL will stay. Having just reread the above, and thinking back to the reasons why glibc was released under the LGPL, I have, in fact, concluded that I am wrong. I'll leave it up there anyway as it's an interesting argument. The next release of ladcca will have libladcca under the LGPL license. I do still not want cubase if it's under proprietary license, and I do still very much fear a linux-audio-dev world dominated by proprietary licenses, but libladcca under the GPL will probably make things worse for free audio software, I see this now. Oh the woes of a proprietary software world :) Anyway, back to hacking :) Bob
