ladspa.h -- a plugin API.

2001-03-06 Thread Junichi Uekawa
ladspa.h is code, and the API specification of a plugin API, and currenty does not have a display of what license it is distributed under. People in the list are discussing what license to distribute it under. What should be the best license to suggest ? It's used in some GPL programs. -- [

Re: ladspa.h -- a plugin API.

2001-03-06 Thread Sam TH
On Wed, Mar 07, 2001 at 12:22:19AM +0900, Junichi Uekawa wrote: > > > ladspa.h is code, and the API specification of a plugin API, > and currenty does not have a display of what license it is distributed under. > > People in the list > are discussing what license to distribute it under. > > W

Re: ladspa.h -- a plugin API.

2001-03-06 Thread Aaron Lehmann
On Tue, Mar 06, 2001 at 11:09:59AM -0600, Sam TH wrote: > http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/license-list.html#GPLCompatibleLicenses That is not the complete list. (There is no complete list.) Theoretically, there are infinite possible GPL-compatable license. The linux-audio folks are free to create

Re: ladspa.h -- a plugin API.

2001-03-06 Thread John Galt
LGPL. It sounds like what the LGPL was written for. Of course I'm just the guy who likes to argue :) On Wed, 7 Mar 2001, Junichi Uekawa wrote: > > >ladspa.h is code, and the API specification of a plugin API, >and currenty does not have a display of what license it is distributed under. > >Peo

Re: ladspa.h -- a plugin API.

2001-03-06 Thread Brian Ristuccia
On Wed, Mar 07, 2001 at 12:22:19AM +0900, Junichi Uekawa wrote: > > > ladspa.h is code, and the API specification of a plugin API, > and currenty does not have a display of what license it is distributed under. > > People in the list > are discussing what license to distribute it under. > > W