[PD-dev] flext license

[smoerk]

The alternative would be a BSD license, which is the most liberal 
license. Why not just use the license PD uses? I think it's similar to 
BSD (or is it BSD license)?

But also LGPL is much better than GPL... :-)

Thomas Grill wrote:

>Hi all,
>since i noticed that none of the original GEM C++ wrapper code is present in
>flext anymore, and there have already been requests concerning the license
>issue, i'll now look into it more deeply.
>Flext will soon fully support jMax, which means that the same source code
>can be used for development of externals under all three major modular
>real-time systems.
>It is now released under the GPL what might somehow hamper the development
>of packages depending on flext. I'm an ignorant concerning these license
>issues, so i'm asking you for some input on this case.
>The most obvious solution would be the LGPL license, but there may be others
>i don't know about. Any suggestions?
>  
>