[Openal-devel] Re-licensing OpenAL Soft
solaryn at hotmail.com
Tue Apr 13 01:18:36 PDT 2010
> 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.
Panda3D has sure come a long way since I last took a look at it. :)
The LGPL allows for binary-only distribution if the library is dynamically linked, so in most cases I don't see the need to change OpenAL Soft's license. In cases like OpenAL-Soft I find that dynamic linking provides benefits over static linking, anyway.
> 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, MIT, and BSD,
> however, are fine.
Did they describe what their concerns were?
> 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'm not against relicensing if it would better suit OpenAL Soft, however I would prefer to know exactly what concerns were raised.
> 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
> Thanks for your guys' consideration. :)
Not a problem.
Got a phone? Get Hotmail & Messenger for mobile!
More information about the Openal-devel