Ivo Emanuel Gon?alves a ?crit :> Also, another correction that you may want to do: > > Over the Introduction section, Speex is described as "Free > software/open-source". I believe this should be replaced altogether > with "Patent-free and royalty-free. Specification under the Public > Domain."No, keep as is. It is definitely not public domain, since it's BSD-licensed and "patent-free" will open futile and unnecessary discussions (on what it's supposed to mean) at the IETF.> Or something like this. Calling Speex free software/open source looks > to me more like a buzzword, than an actual useful comment. > Furthermore, many companies do not trust so-called FLOSS projects.Do you have any company names? Even Microsoft loves BSD software. Jean-Marc
On 6/1/07, Jean-Marc Valin <jean-marc.valin@usherbrooke.ca> wrote:> No, keep as is. It is definitely not public domain, since it's > BSD-licensed and "patent-free" will open futile and unnecessary > discussions (on what it's supposed to mean) at the IETF.I was under the impression that Speex, like Vorbis and FLAC had its specification under the PD, and only the reference C library was licensed under the New BSD License. I agree with the patent-free argument. It may cause problems with IETF reviewers.> Do you have any company names?This comes from my experience while working for small companies here in Portugal. Some of them would go as far as not allowing me to use a GPL tool like Gimp, because they did not understand how software may be given for free. It's also the idea I got from the many computer/geek online communities I'm a member of (e.g. Slashdot, reddit, etc.). But hey, you're the boss. We go with whatever you prefer. -Ivo
> I was under the impression that Speex, like Vorbis and FLAC had its > specification under the PD,AFAIK, under US law, the only way for something to fall in the public domain is for either 1) the author to be an employee of the US government or 2) the author to be dead for more than X years (X being larger than the age of Mickey Mouse). To the best of my knowledge (did I miss something?), none of these applies to me yet. Also, the license under which the "spec" is released is irrelevant. The closest to a "spec" that Speex has is the manual and it's under the GFDL. Sure it means you can't make the document itself proprietary, but anyone can *use* the document for any purpose (including writing a proprietary implementation of Speex).> and only the reference C library was > licensed under the New BSD License.You got that one right.>> Do you have any company names? > > This comes from my experience while working for small companies here > in Portugal. Some of them would go as far as not allowing me to use a > GPL tool like Gimp, because they did not understand how software may > be given for free.So because of that we're supposed to hide the fact that something is free/open source software? I'm sorry, but it's the main *point* of writing Speex. Jean-Marc