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