Hello again, Mr. Robin 2013/11/25 Robin Gareus <robin@xxxxxxxxxx>: > On 11/25/2013 06:54 PM, Carlos sanchiavedraz wrote: >> I've made a quick search in Sourceforge to see the number of projects >> with each licence and related to Audio: > > [..] > > interesting breakdown. You're looking at this from the top, right? Most > restrictive license per project? > > I wonder if it would makes sense detail this further. e.g lines-of-code > per license. > > I suppose the picture is also somewhat incomplete because you did not > include libraries which are used by many of the projects. e.g. LV2 SDK > is MIT, libjack LGPLv2, vamp-plugin SDK 4-clause BSD,.. (no guarantee, > that's just from the top of my head). That's right, Robin, I mentioned "quick search". So therefore, please forgive not being complete. > > If you multiply the use-count of these libraries by the number of > projects that use them, I expect they will dominate GPL projects. > > The resulting app will still be GPL (or any other more restrictive > license) and also the ratio 'lines-of-code per license' as well as > 'projects per license' will remain unchanged. > Interesting. > [..] >> * GPL2/GPL2+: they are a vast majority, [..] Ardour [..] > > While the vast majority of Ardour's own source is GPL-2+, Ardour3 is > effectively GPL-3+ because it includes some code under LGPL-3+. > > http://anonscm.debian.org/gitweb/?p=pkg-multimedia/ardour3.git;a=blob;f=debian/copyright > has a complete breakdown. > I didn't dive to such detail, good to know. And nice resource about this matter that you link. > [..] > >> I thought at the beginning that choosing GPLv3 was the way to go >> nowadays: It's newer, and takes into account problems like >> "Tivoization", patents and stuff. > > I suppose it makes no difference for the vast amount of linux-audio apps. > > I still see GPL-2 vs GPL-3 as a matter of choice! v3 is not better just > because it has a higher number or is newer. > > e.g. maybe some people do want their synth to be included in some > commercial product. The GPLv3 does make this much harder for most > vendors (ie. they'd need to publish their build-stack). A reasoning pro > GPLv2 would be for example: "I don't care how they build it, I don't > want to tinker or hack it and rather just want to play the instrument. > But if they change the synth itself, the must to publish the changes." > > 2c, > robin That is what I somehow supposed, maybe people are not so strict about somebody/some-enterprise including their sw and having benefit from it. In someway, I concur with that, even when I know some of them (enterprises) just "vampirize" and have no return (support, money, code) to the community at least. Thanks again, Robin. -- Carlos sanchiavedraz * Musix GNU+Linux http://www.musix.es _______________________________________________ Linux-audio-user mailing list Linux-audio-user@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-user
