Eric Lyon

Sorry to hijack the thread, but this discussion has nothing to do with whether SC really sounds better than MSP. Csound is indeed covered by the LGPL which seems to be fine for csound~. For me, the strongest argument for using the LGPL is that the GNU docs start off by urging you not to use it! I find that funny, if perhaps unintentionally so. The reason I prefer the MIT license is:

2) I haven't fallen asleep by the time I'm done reading it.

Quote: Peter Castine wrote on Fri, 22 August 2008 21:53

----------------------------------------------------

> Apparently the jury's still out (pretty literally!) on the question of whether GPL forbids mixing GPL'd DLLs with a non-GPL-compatible app (or other DLL). See 

> As I understand it, LGPL would be fine with dynamically linking LGPL code to a proprietary app.

> I don't know that Barry Vercoe (or MIT) is likely to give anyone a hard time about the csound~ object, but given James' unequivocal response to a hypothetical supercollider~ object, he may well have deliberately chosen GPL to prohibit dynamic linking to, say, Max/MSP. Sort of a shame.

http://www.gnu.org/licenses/lgpl.html
http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/gpl.html

Quote: Peter Castine wrote on Fri, 22 August 2008 21:53
----------------------------------------------------
> Apparently the jury's still out (pretty literally!) on the question of whether GPL forbids mixing GPL'd DLLs with a non-GPL-compatible app (or other DLL). See 
>
> As I understand it, LGPL would be fine with dynamically linking LGPL code to a proprietary app.
>
> I don't know that Barry Vercoe (or MIT) is likely to give anyone a hard time about the csound~ object, but given James' unequivocal response to a hypothetical supercollider~ object, he may well have deliberately chosen GPL to prohibit dynamic linking to, say, Max/MSP. Sort of a shame.
----------------------------------------------------


Free v.s. !Free and how well-meaning licenses can bore and confuse us