Hi,
I have question about PD's BSD-style license.
Basically the LICENSE.txt file distributed with the PD sources talks
about "Redistribution and use in source and binary forms", which applies
to "all files associated with the software unless explicitly disclaimed
in individual files". However, it isn't explicit about the use of small
'portions' of code, as the GPL is. For example, if I were take a piece
of functionality from PD, e.g. the phasor~ code, and use it in another
program, what would my obligations be with regard to the BSD license? It
would seem inappropriate to reproduce the copyright notice in PD's
license verbatim, since using the phrase "This software is
copyrighted..." would imply that the copyright notice applied to the
entirety of the software, rather than the small snippet taken from the
PD sources. Perhaps a prominent phrase along the lines of "This software
contains portions of code Copyright Miller Puckette", would be more
appropriate? ... but then that would seem not to comply with the BSD...
Is there some kind of accepted practice with this? Advice or experience
anyone?
TIA,
Jamie
--
www.postlude.co.uk
On Thu, Nov 29, 2007 at 11:26:39AM +0900, PSPunch wrote:
> The last time I looked into DS development around Jun. '07,
> I think there were some difficulties writing Wifi code that
> worked on all types of cartridges.
The greater problem is with disk/cart IO that works on all carts. As
far as I know the same wifi code runs everywhere. I specifically avoid
writing applications that need disk/cart access so I don't have to mess
with the dldi stuff.
> Chris, If you do not know yet and you are interested,
> I can inform you how the compatibility goes with the R4.
I am 99% sure it will work fine on that cartridge, but please let me
know if it doesn't.
Best,
Chris.
-------------------
http://mccormick.cx
----- Forwarded message from physnews(a)aip.org -----
From: physnews(a)aip.org
Reply-to: physnews(a)aip.org
Subject: Physics News Update 848
To: chrism(a)MCCORMICK.CX
X-SpamProbe: GOOD 0.0000138 2576216b3950d67d229c66bea8dc39b7
RECREATING THE WORLD INSIDE YOUR HEAD. The first use of
individualized virtual-reality sounds in a functional MRI (fMRI)
environment to reproduce a naturalistic acoustic experience for
studying brain function might provide a better explanation of the
*cocktail party* effect-the process by which we try to make sense
of
a conversation at a crowded party even as several other potentially
distracting conversations proceed at the same time. New brain scans
using fMRI are helping researchers to understand how the brain
segregates objects in space when a person hears, but not necessarily
sees, multiple sources of sound. At Kourosh Saberi's
(saberi(a)uci.edu) lab at the University of California, Irvine, human
subjects are exposed to several sounds. Sometimes the sounds come
from different locations near the subject, while sometimes several
sounds come from a single location. When looking at fMRI scans
showing areas of enhanced blood flow, which provides 2-mm-resolution
maps of brain activity, the U.C. Irvine scientists report two main
results. First, no specific brain region accounts exclusively for
identifying auditory motion, in contrast to the visual cortex which
does have specific motion-sensing regions. And second, spatial
auditory information seems to be processed in a neural region,
called the Planum Temporale, in a way that can facilitate the
segregation of multiple sound sources. (ASA meeting talk 2aPP8,
http://www.acoustics.org/press/)
----- End forwarded message -----
-------------------
http://mccormick.cx
hi all,
(sorry for crossposting)
i just did a new release of nova. i didn't add too many new features
since the last 0.1 release, but was mainly working on bug fixes ...
get the tarball at:
https://tim.klingt.org/nova/download/releases/nova-0.1.1.tar.bz2
for questions, comments, complaints, bug reports or similar, please
contact me via the nova mailing list:
http://klingt.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/nova-dev
cheers, tim
--
tim(a)klingt.org ICQ: 96771783
http://tim.klingt.org
All we composers really have to work with is time and sound - and
sometimes I'm not even sure about sound.
Morton Feldman
Hallo,
Claude Heiland-Allen hat gesagt: // Claude Heiland-Allen wrote:
> Yes, Pd is BSD (I think), Lua is MIT, but pdlua is GPL (I guess by habit
> rather than deep choice).
>
> I'll think about this some more, maybe I'll change the license for
> future releases. Would appreciate comments/criticism on this.
Here's a snippet from http://lua-users.org/wiki/LuaStyleGuide
Software Licensing
The choice of software license for your Lua code depends on your
goals and what type of code it is (e.g. module or application).
Licensing choice is particularly significant for modules, which are
often distributed with other modules and applications.
There are advantages to licensing Lua modules, or at least those
intended for the general Lua community, under the same terms as
Lua[2] itself, which as of version 5.0 is the MIT license[3]. Not
only is the MIT license a very simple to understand and
unrestrictive license (in fact, no more restrictive than Lua
itself), but consistency in licensing between modules and with Lua
allows simplified distribution of bundles of modules and Lua
together, such as for distributions and embedded versions of Lua.
(This basic approach has worked very well in the past for the Perl
language, which has thousands of modules most entirely under an
MIT-like license called the Artistic License, under which Perl is
also distributed. Perl modules often indicate their licensing simply
with the statement "Licensed under the same terms as Perl itself.")
Those advantages of using an MIT license are reduced, though not
eliminated, if your Lua module acts as a binding to some C library
released under some very different license such (L)GPL or a closed
source one since the latter code impose stronger restrictions on
distribution anyway. Avoid, whenever possible, writing your own
license or adding additional clauses but rather consider strongly
the words of warning about consistency at the top of this document
since inconsistency is a detriment to reusability, and reusability
is a main advantage of modules.
Ciao
--
Frank Barknecht _ ______footils.org__