Re: Responding to your CDDB Inquiries (fwd)

Matthew N. Dodd (winter nospam at jurai.net)
Wed, 10 Mar 1999 10:35:10 -0500 (EST)

On 9 Mar 1999, Kyle R. Rose wrote:
> As I said yesterday, the library code should be distributed under a
> non-viral license. That means LGPL at the very least, up to BSD minus
> the advertisement clause at the most ideal. Remember that a lot of
> players are not open source, but we still want them to adopt this
> protocol. It's the lesser of two evils, right?

Again, I'm not sure why you're so hot to license the client libraries. If
the stated goal is to create a standard that will completly replace CDDB
in the long run then lowering the bar for all software developers free or
commercial should be a consideration. Given that, I'm sure why the client
library needs to be protected by a license. You want to give it away and
hope it wanders as far and wide as possible.

The client library needs to be completly free of a license; public domain.

The end result of this project is what everyone is interested in, not the
actual code. Putting any and all client library code in the public domain
will make it more likely that the next new CD you buy will already have
been entered into the database by one of the legions of users out there.

If you feel the need to add a limitation of liability statement to the top
of every peice of code then by all means. 

-- 
| Matthew N. Dodd  | 78 280Z | 75 164E | 84 245DL | FreeBSD/NetBSD/Sprite/VMS |
| winter nospam at jurai.net |      This Space For Rent     | ix86,sparc,m68k,pmax,vax  |
| http://www.jurai.net/~winter | Are you k-rad elite enough for my webpage?   |