[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[fluid-dev] Re: Linking with GPL libraries (was: FluidSynth 1.0.9 releas
From: |
Josh Green |
Subject: |
[fluid-dev] Re: Linking with GPL libraries (was: FluidSynth 1.0.9 released) |
Date: |
Mon, 13 Apr 2009 12:08:06 -0700 |
Hello David,
On Mon, 2009-04-13 at 15:21 +0200, David Henningsson wrote:
> > So not sure what that is all about. Hmm, it just occurred to me. It is
> > one thing to have your program link with a GPL library and its another
> > to have it in turn link with other programs, perhaps that is the
> > distinction?
>
> The people we're messing it up for is not ourselves, it's for
> applications which links with libfluidsynth AND are not GPL-compatible
> (contains code released under MPL, a proprietary license etc). Assuming
> Debian links with readline/liblash by default, they must provide their
> own compiled version of libfluidsynth, which does not link with
> readline/liblash.
>
> Anyway this is a "gotcha" that we should mention somewhere in the
> documentation.
>
Ok, that makes sense.
> > Does anyone use LASH? I would miss the readline support, that is for
> > sure.
>
> As for readline, it could perhaps be replaced with editline, which is
> under BSD license.
>
Just glancing at editline quickly, it seems like it could indeed be a
replacement. I would like to resolve these issues, so using editline
seems like it could be a good task to accomplish for the next release.
I suppose another way to resolve the issue would be to not have
libfluidsynth link with libreadline, but be used only by the fluidsynth
command line shell.
> Looking it up in Debian (popcon) shows that:
> 104 people have installed lashd
> 688 people have installed liblash2
> 5790 people have installed libfluidsynth
>
It seems like something like LASH would most benefit the community by
being LGPL or some other more open license, for the purpose it has. I
wonder if the author can be persuaded to change it? Otherwise, perhaps
we should just remove support for it. It is optional though, so I can't
see particularly why it would be an issue just to leave the possibility
there, but a warning could be printed at ./configure time.
> >> Seems like a very good idea. I could also have use for some pointers to
> >> why it was decided to fork the project into an 2.x branch.
>
> Sorry about the choice of words here, I meant branch, not fork (even
> though Wikipedia says that branching is a type of forking).
>
> // David
I guess the distinction between branch and fork, is that a branch tends
to be something that contributes back to the original and visa versa,
where as a fork is more separate. At least that has been my conception
of the terminology.
Josh
- [fluid-dev] FluidSynth 1.0.9 released, Josh Green, 2009/04/12
- Re: [fluid-dev] FluidSynth 1.0.9 released, David Henningsson, 2009/04/12
- Re: [fluid-dev] FluidSynth 1.0.9 released, Bernat Arlandis i Mañó, 2009/04/12
- Re: [fluid-dev] FluidSynth 1.0.9 released, Josh Green, 2009/04/13
- Re: [fluid-dev] FluidSynth 1.0.9 released, David Henningsson, 2009/04/13
- Re: [fluid-dev] FluidSynth 1.0.9 released, Bernat Arlandis i Mañó, 2009/04/13
- Re: [fluid-dev] FluidSynth 1.0.9 released, Josh Green, 2009/04/13
- [fluid-dev] Linking with GPL libraries (was: FluidSynth 1.0.9 released), David Henningsson, 2009/04/13
- Re: [fluid-dev] Linking with GPL libraries, Bernat Arlandis i Mañó, 2009/04/13
- [fluid-dev] Re: Linking with GPL libraries (was: FluidSynth 1.0.9 released),
Josh Green <=