[gmpi] Re: licensing

  • From: Tim Hockin <thockin@xxxxxxxxxx>
  • To: gmpi@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Date: Tue, 15 Feb 2005 10:39:37 -0800

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

Other related posts: