[Openal-devel] Re-licensing OpenAL Soft

[Andres Mejia]

On Mon, Apr 12, 2010 at 9:32 PM, Chris Robinson <chris.kcat at gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi.
>
> I've received a couple of requests now for re-licensing OpenAL Soft under a
> more permissible license. One in particular is so OpenAL Soft can be used with
> the Panda3D engine, which can target systems that don't allow, or strongly
> discourage, LGPL-licensed code. I've also been asked for it to be used as a
> reference implementation for a specific platform, but some companies involved
> have problems with the LGPL license.
>
> Although there isn't an issue with open source code in general, there are
> enough concerns with the LGPL license itself that using it is an impractical
> choice for these systems. Licenses like Apache[1], MIT[2], and BSD[3],
> however, are fine.
>
>
> Since OpenAL Soft is built off of Creative's old Windows software driver, I'll
> first need their permission before I can try to change the license, and I hope
> Dan can at least point me in the correct direction, if not look into it
> himself. I'll also need permission from Christopher Fitzgerald (who did the
> reverb code), Konstantinos Natsakis (who did the initial PulseAudio backend),
> and Christian Borss (who did the current panning code).
>
> I figure asking here first would be simplest, since the people in question
> (still, hopefully) read this list, except Konstantinos who I may need to email
> directly.
>
> Thanks for your guys' consideration. :)
>
>
> [1] http://www.opensource.org/licenses/apache2.0.php
> [2] http://www.opensource.org/licenses/mit-license.php
> [3] http://www.opensource.org/licenses/bsd-license.php
> _______________________________________________
> Openal-devel mailing list
> Openal-devel at opensource.creative.com
> http://opensource.creative.com/mailman/listinfo/openal-devel
>

Is dual-licensing going to be considered? This would have an impact on
projects relying on an LGPL OpenAL implementation.

-- 
Regards,
Andres Mejia