[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: