Author Topic: UNMO3 for OpenMPT (Implemented) (Read 6214 times)

Saga Musix · « **on:** November 17, 2008, 17:57:48 »

http://www.un4seen.com/forum/?topic=9092.0
I'll try to fiddle about with it, but if someone finds some time to do this before i can, i wouldn't mind as well.

UNMO3 returns IT, XM, S3M, MOD, MTM files - so i guess copying the loader code for UMX files might be the best idea.

Relabsoluness · « **Reply #1 on:** November 17, 2008, 23:44:37 »

Did I get it right that the source of the library will not be available? Not that it would be requisite anymore, but just to know.

Saga Musix · « **Reply #2 on:** November 18, 2008, 12:02:30 »

there's no source indeed. but there is no source of the winapi either and you are using it.

as long as you link it dynamically, i don't see a problem personally.

Saga Musix · « **Reply #3 on:** November 19, 2008, 19:44:12 »

apparently, there's also some unofficial UNMO3 code, released under GPL...
http://gnu.ethz.ch/debian/unmo3/

Relabsoluness · « **Reply #4 on:** November 19, 2008, 23:55:41 »

Quote from: "Jojo"

apparently, there's also some unofficial UNMO3 code, released under GPL...

Nice to know, although GPL sets restrictions.

Saga Musix · « **Reply #5 on:** November 20, 2008, 17:42:10 »

so which license are we under at the moment anyway?

is it LGPL or something?

Relabsoluness · « **Reply #6 on:** November 20, 2008, 21:56:52 »

Nothing conclusive has been decided, but none who were asked about it(all devs except Ericus who was unreachable) were against BSD(the newer version).

Saga Musix · « **Reply #7 on:** November 21, 2008, 18:00:32 »

what about "OpenMPT license"? :>

Relabsoluness · « **Reply #8 on:** November 21, 2008, 21:01:49 »

Quote from: "Jojo"

what about "OpenMPT license"? :>

Which would be?

Saga Musix · « **Reply #9 on:** November 21, 2008, 21:17:39 »

well... i dunno

there are other (bigger) projects with their own license. but having a look at those license may be a good idea. like the mozilla license or apache license...

LPChip · « **Reply #10 on:** November 21, 2008, 21:47:02 »

These "licenses" are just disclaimers following a normal license agreement.

I would advice against it, because these licenses are usually created by law-enforced people. Making such license yourself could cause holes that allow users to abuse the laws doing things that were unintended. In the end it could harm the OpenMPT community or perhaps even the end-user.

If we use a license from say... Creative Commons, then we'll be sure that every hole has been covered.

Saga Musix · « **Reply #11 on:** November 21, 2008, 22:32:34 »

mozilla code license is used for many project, same goes for the ziplib license if i'm not mistaken. i don't know them by heart, it's just suggenstions.

bvanoudtshoorn · « **Reply #12 on:** November 21, 2008, 23:47:03 »

OK...

MPL: Basically, anyone can take the code and do whatever they like with it, including rebranding it, selling it, not giving credit, etc. Is this what you want? :/

älskling · « **Reply #13 on:** November 22, 2008, 07:52:57 »

What would the benefits of switching to BSD be?

Relabsoluness · « **Reply #14 on:** November 22, 2008, 19:53:33 »

Quote from: "älskling"

What would the benefits of switching to BSD be?

Among other things, to loosen restrictions imposed by GPL; ever wondered why Audacity doesn't provide built-in VST support? BSD is just one of countless choices to clarify the existing license issues.