pouët.net

http://soloud-audio.com

- SoLoud "ELF" release
- Critical bug fix: process was sometimes left hanging at application quit.
- Audio instance creation moved outside the audio thread mutex (some instance creation may take quite a bit of time, causing stutter)
- Wav/wavstream now can report length of the stream in seconds via getLength()
- Filter interface has simplified parameter handling to make writing new filters easier
- Lo-fi filter
- Libmodplug audio source for various formats (669, abc, amf, ams, dbm, dmf, dsm, far, it, j2b, mdl, med, mid, mod, mt2, mtm, okt, pat, psm, ptm, s3m, stm, ult, umx, xm, as well as wider support for wav files).
- SFXR audio source for old school sound effects
- Greatly simplified init pattern; no need (if you don't want) to care about which back-end to use
- Dynamic linking of most back-ends
- "C" API code generator
- DLL based on the "C" API
- Misc smaller fixes, cppcheck fixes and reorganization

Can you please replace that by the actively maintained libopenmpt? Much better support for more formats, less bugs, works on more platforms, and if you don't want to rewrite anything, there's a libmodplug-compatible API as well (although the new C++ API is saner anyway :).

Unfortunatelyu libopenmpt has too restrictive license.

I'm not even sure you read the license they use, let alone take the thirty seconds to visit their site and look it up. You used the ZLib/LibPNG license and they used the BSD license. I am not a lawyer, but the copyright lines and the first paragraph of the former and the last paragraph of the latter are pretty well equivalent. That just leaves the middle.

From there it seems you're both allowed to redistribute them freely in any form: commercial, modified, either, or neither, so the problem can't be there. Then we get to the numbers. Bullet three in ZLib doesn't force the notice upon binary distributions, but the BSD does. ZLib says you can't claim you wrote it, and the BSD doesn't. Given that both have copyright lines and require their notice to be copied forward, even if you did say so with a BSD-licensed project it wouldn't stick. Then finally, the BSD says you shouldn't use the creators' names to indicate endorsement of subsequent products without getting consent. ZLib has something more or less the same by indicating changed projects must state as much and not try to appear as if they're the original. This is all a wash. You could quite easily satisfy both licenses at the same time for the same product without harming the rights of either project or spending an inordinate amount of time.

TL;DR? You're dumb. If you don't want to use Saga Musix's project, spend the time to give a good reason.

Thanks.

I'm aware of the issue, and it may seem silly to you, but I don't want to encumber software with clauses that require addition to documentation or whatever. It's just one line I drew and that's that.

Nothing stops people from compiling their own version with different libraries.

So apparently the burden of Atlas in modern times takes the form of a link in the README for this single other library or even copying it down to a file you check in to the repo?

The three-clause BSD is almost the "Yeah sure, we'll bend over. Hang on ..."-license and you can't be arsed to even merely write a one-liner about it in your project?

@AMcBain: Why are you trolling so rudely?

It's not my project I worry about, but projects that use the library. (I've written quite few lines about the licenses).

*I* find value in the fact that the library can be used without having to figure out a way to let the user know that there's code by these five hundred people in there.

Anyway, nothing stops you (or anyone else) from replacing the code. Or from doing almost anything else to the code, for that matter.

There's nowhere in the BSD license that says you must show it to the user. Ever. All it says is you have to include it with your stuff. That's it.

Indeed they could, taking your word for it, and that's cool. However the original reason for not seriously considering the option presented above I feel was a rather rash and silly one.

Not even the slightest thought went in to the original response on using the suggestion. It was pushed out of the way by non-existent trivialities.


Anyway, I'm done here. It's your project, free world and all that arbitrary platitude crap. Opportunity missed and all, for something that's even got the same API.

NOOOO! I didn't even have time to grab the popcorn!

what happened to the good old i-dont-give-a-shit-about-what-the-license-sais-unless-someone-complains? :p

Afair there's even some forks of libmodplug that are under GPL. I'm sure there's some people who could make a great case that I should use that instead. The reason why I'm not picking those is the same as why I'm not picking attribution-required licensed ones, namely, I don't want to expand the restrictions placed on the library.

Sean Barrett has some commentary on the license choices that make sense to me (http://nothings.org/stb_vorbis/ under the "Public Domain "license"" topic).

Anyway, I added a FAQ item on this topic to the site, as someone else is bound to wonder about it as well..

Support for Android and iOS, please :)

Patches are welcome =)

AMC: Opensouce works like this, either help out or shut up! I'm sure that sol wouldn't mind linking a libopenmpt based soundsource for SoLoud for those that care more about mod quality than licences. Go write it now and assuming you don't make it horribly crufty to work then your plugin/fork/whatever would have a good chance of displacing fmod/bass for portable demos if it sounds good enough.

Personally i appreciate that Sol has taken the time to make a simply licenced unencumbered crossplatform library and there's a good chance i'll use parts of it for future demo and/or commercial projects just because of this.