Markus:
Thanks so much for your comments. I will say more below about our code,
but I think you are right to critisize our process. Personally, I'd like
to see us using a bug tracking system and a better source code management
and patch management system. I don't have enough expereience in thi
On Mon, 20 Feb 2006, Ross Bencina wrote:
> [someone said]
> >Or, if the "request" clause is not removed from the license, I would
> >like to see it clarified as follows:
> >
> > Any person wishing to distribute modifications to the Software is
> > requested BUT NOT REQUIRED to send the modification
Hi Matt
I would like to see PortAudio use an unmodified X11 license (widely
used, and identical to the current PortAudio license except for the
non-binding "request" clause). Rather than appearing in the license's
list of conditions, this clause could appear in the documentation, or
any other w
Hi Markus
First of all, thanks for taking the time to put your concerns in writing --
some of these issues are news to me. I've received a lot of traffic over
this issuein the last 24 hours and I'll have get back to you with some more
detailed responses to the strategic issues, however I want
On Monday 20 February 2006 00:46, Matt Brubeck was like:
> Any person wishing to distribute modifications to the Software is
> requested BUT NOT REQUIRED to send the modifications to the original
> developer so that they can be incorporated into the canonical version.
Messy.
Is the word REC
Ross Bencina wrote:
PortAudio upstream was planning to change the license to clarify
this, but I don't think they ever got around to tracking down all the
contributors in order to do this.
I think there was never any clarity on what the license should be
changed to. I am in touch with all of
Let me say as a long time member of this list and user of Portaudio and
its proponent in many projects, there was a period of a year where this
project was a big time user of Ambien. It was asleep for the most
part. A few folks came along and woke it up.
Flex Radio depends heavily on PortA
This one time, at band camp, Junichi Uekawa said:
> However, portaudio looks non-free to me.
>
> http://www.portaudio.com/license.html: * Any person wishing to
> distribute modifications to the Software is requested to send the
> modifications to the original developer so that they can be
> incorp
Alexander Terekhov wrote:
On 2/18/06, olive <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I think the following links might interest you.
Yeah.
All complain about the GPL are dismissed one after the other.
http://hearsay.com/wp-hdcarchives/cases/wallace_v_fsf-28nov2005.pdf
Here the judge rejected a numb
Ross Bencina schrieb:
> There are numerous active commercial applications which depend on
> PortAudio.. it is far from dead and gone. Quite naturally I believe it
> to be a technically superior solution to RtAudio, primarily because
> (last time I checked) RtAudio does not attempt to solve many of
10 matches
Mail list logo
