Re: [Portaudio] Re: portaudio in Debian, license updates?

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

Re: portaudio in Debian, license updates?

Junichi Uekawa wrote: Things like portaudio and MIDIshare never really arrived. (OK, I'm exaggerating slightly - Doesn't Audacity use portaudio?) Audacity does use portaudio. Portaudio isn't dead and gone, but development is barely progressing. With portaudio-v19 audacity can use jack. Audaci

Re: Audacity and portaudio

Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote: > > > If the clause in question is just a request, why do the upstream > > > maintainers need the permission of all contributors to move it > > > aside? > > > > Because the license otherwise requires that "this permission notice" > > (which includes the request in questi

Re: Audacity and portaudio

Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote: > If the clause in question is just a request, why do the upstream > maintainers need the permission of all contributors to move it aside? Because the license otherwise requires that "this permission notice" (which includes the request in question) must be included ver

Audacity and portaudio

I am the maintainer of audacity, which includes the PortAudio library. Browsing the debian-legal archive, I came across the recent thread about Audacity and the PortAudio license. (This apparently came up months ago, but I wasn't made aware of it then.) First - I updated audacity's debian/copyrig

Re: PHPNuke license

Edmund GRIMLEY EVANS: > > Maybe I'm remembering something completely wrong, but I thought that > > legal contracts in the US were not copyrightable. > > If that is the case, I congratulate the US legislators. > > However, in the UK, if I remember correctly, the Law Society owns the > copyright for

Re: GNOME Font Copyright

On Feb 25, J.B. Nicholson-Owens wrote: > I asked if my understanding of the exchange was correct--GNOME > distributes Bitstream's non-free Vera fonts and in exchange Bitstream > eventually supplies DFSG-free software. I believe this is incorrect -- I don't think that GNOME is compelled to distrib