[gmpi] Re: licensing
- From: jeffmcc@xxxxxxxxxx
- To: gmpi@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Wed, 16 Feb 2005 10:07:43 +1300
> Has anyone who said they would be interested in MMA
> membership, actually joined yet?
I haven't joined because i'm unclear as to what's happening.
I am happy to join to continue working on GMPI.
I wasn't at the NAMM meeting, so I don't know what exactly
was said there. Ron has hinted that the reception was
negative "I took some bullets". I still feel 'in the dark'.
Ron, could you clarify. If we join the MMA, will this
process (the development of the GMPI spec) continue? Are we
waiting on a decision from the MMA?, or is the MMA waiting
on a decision from us?
Has the MMA made a decision?, if not can we have a estimate
of when?
Cheers,
Jeff McClintock
jef@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
"Following the collection of requirements in Phase 1, the
members of the MMA
will meet to discuss and evaluate proposals, in accordance
with existing
MMA procedures for developing standards. There will be one
or more periods
for public comment prior to adoption by MMA members.
"
Best Regards,
Jeff
>
> Please don't open any public source code repository yet
> until we hear back from the MMA.
>
> Has anyone who said they would be interested in MMA
> membership, actually joined yet?
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Tim Hockin" <thockin@xxxxxxxxxx>
> To: <gmpi@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Sent: Tuesday, February 15, 2005 1:39 PM
> Subject: [gmpi] Re: licensing
>
>
> > On Tue, Feb 15, 2005 at 09:51:06AM -0700, Mike Berry
> > > wrote: It seems to me that the API and the SDK should
> > > not necessarily be under the same license. We don't
> > > want anyone modifying the API, because that *IS* GMPI
> and is what determines compatibility. The SDK, on the
> > > other hand, should be open to modification. Why would
> > > we care? As long as it is using the same API,
> compatibility is guaranteed. >
> > Remember that the "API" files will be included in a
> > project. By doing so, the license has to allow that.
> >
> > I think that the implementation of the API (headers)
> > should be loosely licensed, but the API definition is
> tightly controlled (MMA). >
> > The reason I brought this up is so that we can open a
> > public project with all this code we've been bouncing
> about. >
> >
> ----------------------------------------------------------
> > ------------ Generalized Music Plugin Interface (GMPI)
> > public discussion list Participation in this list is
> > contingent upon your abiding by the following rules:
> > Please stay on topic. You are responsible for your own
> words. Please respect your fellow subscribers. Please do
> > not redistribute anyone else's words without their
> permission. >
> > Archive: //www.freelists.org/archives/gmpi
> > Email gmpi-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx w/ subject
> "unsubscribe" to unsubscribe >
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------
> ------------ Generalized Music Plugin Interface (GMPI)
> public discussion list Participation in this list is
> contingent upon your abiding by the following rules:
> Please stay on topic. You are responsible for your own
> words. Please respect your fellow subscribers. Please do
> not redistribute anyone else's words without their
> permission.
>
> Archive: //www.freelists.org/archives/gmpi
> Email gmpi-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx w/ subject "unsubscribe"
> to unsubscribe
>
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Generalized Music Plugin Interface (GMPI) public discussion list
Participation in this list is contingent upon your abiding by the
following rules: Please stay on topic. You are responsible for your own
words. Please respect your fellow subscribers. Please do not
redistribute anyone else's words without their permission.
Archive: //www.freelists.org/archives/gmpi
Email gmpi-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx w/ subject "unsubscribe" to unsubscribe
Other related posts:
