[PD-dev] OSCx License is not free?

[Hans-Christoph Steiner]

On Tuesday, Apr 6, 2004, at 15:17 America/New_York, Andrew (Andy) W.  
Schmeder wrote:

> On Tue, 2004-04-06 at 07:27, guenter geiger wrote:
>> Really bad situation. I think the CNMAT should rethink its license,
>> especially if they want OSC to become a standard. Its strange that the
>> topic didn't show up before.
>
> Only the 'OSC-Kit' code is covered by that license (i.e. the OSC
> specification is still free).
>
> One could easily use another implementation, e.g. Steve Harris's new
> liblo. (and it might be better code anyways - osckit did not strike me
> as being particularly robust, its more like an example than a
> production-ready library)

The specification might be free, that I don't know.  But not  
necessarily, it might be covered under a similar non-commercial  
license.  The code that is in the Pd CVS currently has the non-free  
license on the top of each file.

It seems crazy that UC Berkeley would have such a license considering  
that they are one of the pioneers of open-source.  People do complain a  
lot these days that it has become quite conservative...

.hc

________________________________________________________________________ 
____

"[W]e have invented the technology to eliminate scarcity, but we are  
deliberately throwing it away
to benefit those who profit from scarcity."
							-John Gilmore
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: text/enriched
Size: 1412 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.puredata.info/pipermail/pd-dev/attachments/20040406/57448cfa/attachment.bin>