A while back Josh was thinking of changing the Flac license, and posted a question on Slashdot regarding various licensing schemes. Josh, have you come to any conclusions about future licensing of Flac? - Woody _________________________________________________________________ MSN Photos is the easiest way to share and print your photos: http://photos.msn.com/support/worldwide.aspx
I've always wondered, why can't a simple LGPL/GPL double-license do the trick? -- Asheesh. On Tue, 15 Jan 2002, Matt Zimmerman wrote:> On Tue, Jan 15, 2002 at 03:27:42PM -0500, Woodrow Stool wrote: > > > A while back Josh was thinking of changing the Flac license, and posted a > > question on Slashdot regarding various licensing schemes. > > > > Josh, have you come to any conclusions about future licensing of Flac? > > If the concerns are about embedded systems, I recommend adding an exception > to the license (a carefully worded one, written with the assistance of > legal-types) rather than changing to a BSD-style license. > > Have you asked the FSF about their thoughts on the LGPL's application to > embedded systems? As far as I know, the LGPL authors have nothing > specifically against the use of free software in embedded systems, and they > might have useful input on the subject. licensing@gnu.org would be, I > think, the right place to ask, if you haven't already. > >-- In Pocatello, Idaho, a law passed in 1912 provided that "The carrying of concealed weapons is forbidden, unless same are exhibited to public view."
--- Matt Zimmerman <mdz@debian.org> wrote:> On Tue, Jan 15, 2002 at 03:27:42PM -0500, Woodrow Stool wrote: > > > A while back Josh was thinking of changing the Flac license, and > posted a > > question on Slashdot regarding various licensing schemes. > > > > Josh, have you come to any conclusions about future licensing of > Flac? > > If the concerns are about embedded systems, I recommend adding an > exception > to the license (a carefully worded one, written with the assistance > of > legal-types) rather than changing to a BSD-style license.this is the tack I am taking...> Have you asked the FSF about their thoughts on the LGPL's application > to > embedded systems? As far as I know, the LGPL authors have nothing > specifically against the use of free software in embedded systems, > and they > might have useful input on the subject. licensing@gnu.org would be, > I > think, the right place to ask, if you haven't already....this is ideal. I've been a little hestitant to just cold-mail someone and haven't really searched any relevant gnu lists; surely this has come up before. I'm really short on time right now but it has to be done. one company who is investigating FLAC has submitted to me a license modification that seems to preserve the spirit but I need a lawyer to examine it properly. [to all] incidently, this leads me to another topic which I will be posting about shortly. it will be clear when you see it but if you have submitted any patches that have been accepted, make sure and read it. Josh __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Great stuff seeking new owners in Yahoo! Auctions! http://auctions.yahoo.com
On Tue, Jan 15, 2002 at 03:27:42PM -0500, Woodrow Stool wrote:> A while back Josh was thinking of changing the Flac license, and posted a > question on Slashdot regarding various licensing schemes. > > Josh, have you come to any conclusions about future licensing of Flac?If the concerns are about embedded systems, I recommend adding an exception to the license (a carefully worded one, written with the assistance of legal-types) rather than changing to a BSD-style license. Have you asked the FSF about their thoughts on the LGPL's application to embedded systems? As far as I know, the LGPL authors have nothing specifically against the use of free software in embedded systems, and they might have useful input on the subject. licensing@gnu.org would be, I think, the right place to ask, if you haven't already. -- - mdz