[Openal-devel] Re-licensing OpenAL Soft

[Daniel PEACOCK]

Hi Chris,

> 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).

Yikes!  My initial thought is that this could be pretty difficult.  I'm not
sure, but it could end up in a situation where expert legal advice may be
required.

Right now it doesn't seem clear which license(s) you wish to use instead of
the LGPL, or what the exact reasons are for requiring the change.  I think
those things need to be determined first.

Dan
Creative Labs (UK) Ltd.

Notice
The information in this message is confidential and may be legally
privileged.  It is intended solely for the addressee.  Access to this
message by anyone else is unauthorized.  If you are not the intended
recipient,  any disclosure,  copying or distribution of the message,  or
any action taken by you in reliance on it,  is prohibited and may be
unlawful.  If you have received this message in error,  please delete it
and contact the sender immediately.  Thank you.

Creative Labs UK Ltd company number 2658256 registered in England and Wales
at 79 Knightsbridge, London SW1X 7RB


openal-devel-bounces at opensource.creative.com wrote on 13/04/2010 02:32:30:

> 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 beused
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
companiesinvolved
> 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.
>
>

>
> 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

> ForwardSourceID:NT00079916