[PD] Re: [PD-dev] pdogg hacks

rama medialist at xicnet.com
Thu May 26 19:12:10 CEST 2005


El jue, 26-05-2005 a las 17:21 +0200, Frank Barknecht escribió:
> Hallo,
> B. Bogart hat gesagt: // B. Bogart wrote:
> 
> > Since versions were freely distributed this does mean that any of us
> > would be free to continue to develop it as a fork from your old free
> > versions? As long as they do not include code from your new non-free
> > versions?
> > 
> > Anyhow just looking for a little clarification.
> 
> pdogg as it is in CVS is released as LGPL, so everyone is free to
> create and distribute modifications as long as they follow that
> license. I don't know if the license in Olaf's "commercial" version
> has changed, but as primary author Olaf has every right to change the
> license for newer versions. However he would not be allowed to include
> rama's changes into a non-free version unless rama would allow this
> (which I doubt he would do.)

of course i wouldn't allow any of my work, which is all free to use,
change, whatever GPL, to be included in any non-free project. however I
wonder how it can be controlled. I mean, if any closed-source project
would like to steal code from open-source ones, who would be able to
avoid that? but for sure this discussion was treated everywhere around,
but I have no clue how it would be.

> The actual question for us now is: should we add the new changes into
> CVS and create a "fork"?

actually there are no newer versions of pdogg for around one year or
more. and the oggPRO from Olaf is another story, not a new version of
pdogg as I understand.

so, correct me if I'm wrong, but any changes introduced into pdogg at
this point, wouldn't mean a fork, but just continue it's development.
pdogg was orphaned long time ago, isn't it? and as far as I can
remember, Olaf said anyone willing to take over its development, could
do so.

in the case Olaf was still into the development of pdogg lib, sure it
would be a fork if we wanted to introduce changes which were not
accepted by him. but in this case, it's just abandoned, waiting for
someone(s) to adopt it and keep it on.

what do you think?

> IMO if Olaf wants to keep his newer code
> "non-free" then in fact we already somehow have a fork.

hmmm yep, somehow.. but what about thinking the other way round:
oggPRO is a fork into non-free!

hasta luego,
r

> (Note: I use the term "non-free" in the Debian sense.) 
> 
> Ciao
-- 





More information about the Pd-list mailing list