Hi This whole issue is dacades old, isnt that why the whole FSF fiasco started. On Tue, 18 Mar 2003, Frank Barknecht wrote: > Hallo, > Dave Phillips hat gesagt: // Dave Phillips wrote: > > > Frank, as you can see, this license prohibits *any* redistribution > > unless specifically contracted via MIT. > > I didn't understand it this way, but it seems to be even worse than I > thought... > > > However, Rick Boulanger recently met with Barry Vercoe to ask > > specifically about a change in the license. Apparently Barry is > > sympathetic but he may not have the real power to change it, i.e., it > > might be more MIT's decision than his (as you can see above, Barry does > > not hold the copyright, it belongs to MIT). At any rate, Rick spoke with > > Barry a few weeks ago and nothing of substance has been reported yet. > > Rick is a good fellow, I know he wants to help resolve this rather > > important issue, but don't hold your breath waiting for a change. > > Yes, this license discussion is so old but it is also so sad. MIT > could make available a good software, but they need to face the fact, > that it is several *decades* old. I see no way they could make any > money from such an "old-fashioned" software, and also Csound is *only* > still useful today because of the work, non-MIT people like j. ffitch > are doing for it. > > So MIT isn't just holding back a piece of software they own, but a > whole community, that they don't own, but they behave like the did. > There lies the real tragic of the whole affair and that is the point, > why every 6 months or so an important developer is leaving the Csound > community. > > I really hope, Dr. Boulanger can persuade the MIT to make Csound open > source. I learned a lot from the Csound book, but I'm forced to use > this knowledge in Pd now. (Which I would have done anyway, I guess ;) > > ciao >
