> People have mentioned the LGPL. That isn't good enough. It means that
> you still must distribute your code in a linkable form such that a
> person can relink with a modified library. That won't work for most
> people.
>
> It must be BSD-like.
Ach. BSD-vs-LPGL again. But I have to bit. I completely disagree. The
protocol is free. If I spend time and write code to utilize the protocol,
I'm not willing to give that code away to those with proprietary
commercial interests. They are more than willing to write their own code,
but they can't have mine. People writing open cd-applications, on the
other hand, are welcome to my code.
This is just my opinion, of course, and my basis for judging whether I
will contribute my unpaid development hours to a "free" project. If others
disagree and are willing to contribute under a BSD model, I certainly
won't complain.
> As I've mentioned before, the data is public information (subject to
> "fair use" copyrights).
Do you have hard evidence on this? I'd like to believe this, and it seems
likely, but do we know for sure?
Mike