feapi-discussion Mailing List for Feature Extraction plugin API (Page 2)

SourceForge Headquarters 1320 Columbia Street Suite 310 San Diego, CA 92101 +1 (858) 422-6466

fea...@li... wrote:
> no problems reading the archives for me...

no problems for me too...

Gualtiero

Although I am too late: my best wishes to you!

Cheers,
(a)

Gualtiero Volpe wrote:
> Koen Tanghe wrote:
>> alexander lerch wrote, On 2007-03-23 12:04:
>>> So you vote for leaving it as Gualtiero checked it in?
>> Yeah, but with an extra sentence with a link to the SF site in section
>> 3. Documentation.
> 
> OK. Done. I basically used your text. Is it ok?
>  
>> PS
>> Nitty gritty details, Gualtiero (I will start using G in the future,
>> that's shorter ;-)): 
> 
> Short names are easier eh ;-)
> At home they call me Gua, at the Lab Gu. G is also ok.
> Choose the one you like the most ;-)
> 
>> while at it, you may want to insert an extra new
>> line after section 4. header + write "software" in that title with
>> lower case instead of upper case. Sorry, I'm a freak sometimes, bad
>> habit ;-) 
> 
> Done. Don't worry. I'm also like this sometimes ;-)
> 
> Well, now I stop... The birthday cake is waiting for me :-)
> 
> Gualtiero
> 
> 
> 
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Take Surveys. Earn Cash. Influence the Future of IT
> Join SourceForge.net's Techsay panel and you'll get the chance to share your
> opinions on IT & business topics through brief surveys-and earn cash
> http://www.techsay.com/default.php?page=join.php&p=sourceforge&CID=DEVDEV
> _______________________________________________
> Feapi-discussion mailing list
> Fea...@li...
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/feapi-discussion
> 

-- 
dipl. ing.
alexander lerch

zplane.development
:www.zplane.de
katzbachstr.21
d-10965 berlin

fon: +49.30.854 09 15.0
fax: +49.30.854 09 15.5

no problems reading the archives for me...

Cheers,
(a)

Koen Tanghe wrote:
> alexander lerch wrote, On 2007-03-23 11:54:
>> Now that I think about it, the earliest possible date for the next
>> release candidate would be in about two weeks, since next week is
>> Musikmesse, and we are in the last stages of releasing our first plugin
>> instrument, so ....
> 
> So, I did a few other little corrections (see commit list).
> 
> By the way, an any of you try and see if they can access the mailing 
> list archives from the link at the bottom of this mail:
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/feapi-discussion
> 
> I tried both from work and from home, and can't get through for some 
> reason (HTTP 500 Internal Server Error).
> 
> If none of you can access them either, I think I'll file a support issue 
> over at SourceForge.
> 
> Koen
> 
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Take Surveys. Earn Cash. Influence the Future of IT
> Join SourceForge.net's Techsay panel and you'll get the chance to share your
> opinions on IT & business topics through brief surveys-and earn cash
> http://www.techsay.com/default.php?page=join.php&p=sourceforge&CID=DEVDEV
> _______________________________________________
> Feapi-discussion mailing list
> Fea...@li...
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/feapi-discussion
> 

-- 
dipl. ing.
alexander lerch

zplane.development
:www.zplane.de
katzbachstr.21
d-10965 berlin

fon: +49.30.854 09 15.0
fax: +49.30.854 09 15.5

alexander lerch wrote, On 2007-03-23 11:54:
> Now that I think about it, the earliest possible date for the next
> release candidate would be in about two weeks, since next week is
> Musikmesse, and we are in the last stages of releasing our first plugin
> instrument, so ....

So, I did a few other little corrections (see commit list).

By the way, an any of you try and see if they can access the mailing 
list archives from the link at the bottom of this mail:
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/feapi-discussion

I tried both from work and from home, and can't get through for some 
reason (HTTP 500 Internal Server Error).

If none of you can access them either, I think I'll file a support issue 
over at SourceForge.

Koen

Koen Tanghe wrote:
> alexander lerch wrote, On 2007-03-23 12:04:
>> So you vote for leaving it as Gualtiero checked it in?
> 
> Yeah, but with an extra sentence with a link to the SF site in section
> 3. Documentation.

OK. Done. I basically used your text. Is it ok?

> PS
> Nitty gritty details, Gualtiero (I will start using G in the future,
> that's shorter ;-)): 

Short names are easier eh ;-)
At home they call me Gua, at the Lab Gu. G is also ok.
Choose the one you like the most ;-)

> while at it, you may want to insert an extra new
> line after section 4. header + write "software" in that title with
> lower case instead of upper case. Sorry, I'm a freak sometimes, bad
> habit ;-) 

Done. Don't worry. I'm also like this sometimes ;-)

Well, now I stop... The birthday cake is waiting for me :-)

Gualtiero

> Your Vielklang seems promising! I'll definitely check it out when you
> have a demo up. An analysis-based automatic harmonizer was actually
> one of the things that was on my "ideas for music analysis
> applications" list, so I'm really interested.

Yeah, very very interesting!
My best wishes for Musikmesse!

Gualtiero

alexander lerch wrote, On 2007-03-23 12:34:

> <mainly OK>

I changed all *.h *.hpp *.c *.cpp *.txt files now.

I had noticed that the loudness plugin files were indeed all licensed as 
GPL, except for 1: fft.h.
As I saw that other duplicate zplane files (like RingBuffer.h etc) were 
under GPL in the loudness plugin and under BSD in the other locations, I 
assumed this was meant to be likethat for this fft.h as well, so I made 
it GPL like the other files for the loudness plugin. Is that OK? (as GPL 
is more strict than BSD, I already committed it like that, so we can 
still go back if it's needed)

I will now look if there are still other locations that need an update 
(I know the SF website does). Or I'll better go and eat something first ;-)

Your Vielklang seems promising! I'll definitely check it out when you 
have a demo up. An analysis-based automatic harmonizer was actually one 
of the things that was on my "ideas for music analysis applications" 
list, so I'm really interested.

Koen

Koen Tanghe wrote:
> alexander lerch wrote, On 2007-03-23 11:54:
>> BTW, I don't think you have to modify the plugin's licenses. I think
>> they are all written by either Remy or myself.
> 
> Yes, you're absolutely right.
> Just a few more things (short yes/no will probably suffice):
> 
> Spec and SDK files:
> - most files in the sdk\host section are by Remy
> - most files in the sdk\plugin section are by Alex
> Now, I was thinking to do this:
> 1. keep the copyright holder as IRCAM or zplane
> 2. update the copyright end date to 2007 while I'm at it
> 3. change the following actual license text ("Redistribution and use 
> ..." etc) to the original BSD text as posted a few minutes ago.
> Is this OK, Remy and Alex?

Yes.

> About the non-spec/SDK source files:
> can I follow the same approach here: keep the copyright holder (but 
> update the end date) but change the old BSD-like text to the pure BSD 
> text where the old BSD-like text was used?
> Of course, the files where *another* license (not the old BSD-like text) 
> was used will be left intact.
> Is that OK?

Yes. Only Loudness should be GPL, the rest should be the FEAPI license.

>> Now that I think about it, the earliest possible date for the next
>> release candidate would be in about two weeks, since next week is
>> Musikmesse, and we are in the last stages of releasing our first plugin
>> instrument, so ....
> 
> Nice! Any luck in knowing what type of instrument it will be? Good luck!

Have a look here: http://vielklang.zplane.de. We are in the release
candidate stage so it's not a secret anymore ;)

Cheers,
(a)

-- 
dipl. ing.
alexander lerch

zplane.development
:www.zplane.de
katzbachstr.21
d-10965 berlin

fon: +49.30.854 09 15.0
fax: +49.30.854 09 15.5

Koen Tanghe wrote:
> alexander lerch wrote, On 2007-03-23 11:54:
>> BTW, I don't think you have to modify the plugin's licenses. I think
>> they are all written by either Remy or myself.
> 
> Yes, you're absolutely right.
> Just a few more things (short yes/no will probably suffice):
> 
> Spec and SDK files:
> - most files in the sdk\host section are by Remy
> - most files in the sdk\plugin section are by Alex
> Now, I was thinking to do this:
> 1. keep the copyright holder as IRCAM or zplane
> 2. update the copyright end date to 2007 while I'm at it
> 3. change the following actual license text ("Redistribution and use 
> ..." etc) to the original BSD text as posted a few minutes ago.
> Is this OK, Remy and Alex?

Yes.

> About the non-spec/SDK source files:
> can I follow the same approach here: keep the copyright holder (but 
> update the end date) but change the old BSD-like text to the pure BSD 
> text where the old BSD-like text was used?
> Of course, the files where *another* license (not the old BSD-like text) 
> was used will be left intact.
> Is that OK?

Yes. Only Loudness should be GPL, the rest should be the FEAPI license.

>> Now that I think about it, the earliest possible date for the next
>> release candidate would be in about two weeks, since next week is
>> Musikmesse, and we are in the last stages of releasing our first plugin
>> instrument, so ....
> 
> Nice! Any luck in knowing what type of instrument it will be? Good luck!

Have a look here: http://vielklang.zplane.de. We are in the release
candidate stage so it's not a secret anymore ;)

Cheers,
(a)

-- 
dipl. ing.
alexander lerch

zplane.development
:www.zplane.de
katzbachstr.21
d-10965 berlin

fon: +49.30.854 09 15.0
fax: +49.30.854 09 15.5

alexander lerch wrote, On 2007-03-23 11:54:
> BTW, I don't think you have to modify the plugin's licenses. I think
> they are all written by either Remy or myself.

Yes, you're absolutely right.
Just a few more things (short yes/no will probably suffice):

Spec and SDK files:
- most files in the sdk\host section are by Remy
- most files in the sdk\plugin section are by Alex
Now, I was thinking to do this:
1. keep the copyright holder as IRCAM or zplane
2. update the copyright end date to 2007 while I'm at it
3. change the following actual license text ("Redistribution and use 
..." etc) to the original BSD text as posted a few minutes ago.
Is this OK, Remy and Alex?

About the non-spec/SDK source files:
can I follow the same approach here: keep the copyright holder (but 
update the end date) but change the old BSD-like text to the pure BSD 
text where the old BSD-like text was used?
Of course, the files where *another* license (not the old BSD-like text) 
was used will be left intact.
Is that OK?

> Now that I think about it, the earliest possible date for the next
> release candidate would be in about two weeks, since next week is
> Musikmesse, and we are in the last stages of releasing our first plugin
> instrument, so ....

Nice! Any luck in knowing what type of instrument it will be? Good luck!

Koen

alexander lerch wrote, On 2007-03-23 12:04:
> So you vote for leaving it as Gualtiero checked it in?

Yeah, but with an extra sentence with a link to the SF site in section 
3. Documentation.

Koen

PS
Nitty gritty details, Gualtiero (I will start using G in the future, 
that's shorter ;-)):
while at it, you may want to insert an extra new line after section 4. 
header + write "software" in that title with lower case instead of upper 
case. Sorry, I'm a freak sometimes, bad habit ;-)

So you vote for leaving it as Gualtiero checked it in?

Cheers,
(a)

Koen Tanghe wrote:
> alexander lerch wrote, On 2007-03-23 11:55:
>> Hmm while this would clean up the directory, I think history and license
>> overview aren't of any interest to 90% of the users, so I wouldn't add
>> that to the website. Anyway, I think it's not as worse as I sounded;
>> what about just checking the website's index.html in the main directory?
> 
> Yeah, or just add an extra line in the readme.txt file that syas 
> something like: "This readme file just gathers some basic info, please 
> be sure to check the FEAI web site and documentatoin for the most-up-to 
> date info" + link to web site (if not already mentioned) and local docs 
> directory.
> At least the readme.txt file is one that is read by most 
> users/developers that want to read something before delving into the 
> code/doxygen docs ;-)
> 
> Koen
> 
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Take Surveys. Earn Cash. Influence the Future of IT
> Join SourceForge.net's Techsay panel and you'll get the chance to share your
> opinions on IT & business topics through brief surveys-and earn cash
> http://www.techsay.com/default.php?page=join.php&p=sourceforge&CID=DEVDEV
> _______________________________________________
> Feapi-discussion mailing list
> Fea...@li...
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/feapi-discussion
> 

-- 
dipl. ing.
alexander lerch

zplane.development
:www.zplane.de
katzbachstr.21
d-10965 berlin

fon: +49.30.854 09 15.0
fax: +49.30.854 09 15.5

alexander lerch wrote, On 2007-03-23 11:55:
> Hmm while this would clean up the directory, I think history and license
> overview aren't of any interest to 90% of the users, so I wouldn't add
> that to the website. Anyway, I think it's not as worse as I sounded;
> what about just checking the website's index.html in the main directory?

Yeah, or just add an extra line in the readme.txt file that syas 
something like: "This readme file just gathers some basic info, please 
be sure to check the FEAI web site and documentatoin for the most-up-to 
date info" + link to web site (if not already mentioned) and local docs 
directory.
At least the readme.txt file is one that is read by most 
users/developers that want to read something before delving into the 
code/doxygen docs ;-)

Koen

Hmm while this would clean up the directory, I think history and license
overview aren't of any interest to 90% of the users, so I wouldn't add
that to the website. Anyway, I think it's not as worse as I sounded;
what about just checking the website's index.html in the main directory?

Cheers,
(a)

Gualtiero Volpe wrote:
> fea...@li... wrote:
>> That's a good idea.
>> But I don't like the increasing number of txt-files in the main
>> directory very much. Also, the text file seems pretty similar to the
>> website; perhaps we should just add the html and can thus avoid that
>> readme and website will move apart over time?
> 
> I also don't like to have too many txt files (even if at the moment the
> proliferation is mainly due to the fact that we have 4 files for
> licensing...).
> We could merge history, license.overview, and readme in the html.
> Pros: reduce the number of txt files and give direct access to docs
> Cons: the html could become too lengthy and less effective
> 
> Anyway, I'm ok with this solution if you think it's better.
> 
> Gualtiero
> 
> 
>> Gualtiero Volpe wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> I've just added a readme file for the FEAPI distributions.
>>> In writing (or copy & paste ;-)) it, I followed the structure we
>>> discussed some time ago. I also added some extra headings (e.g.,
>>> About FEAPI, Contributors), since I've seen that these headings were
>>> included in the VAMP readme and I think they may be useful for us
>>> too.
>>>
>>> The text still needs some refinement and proof-reading (I did it
>>> quite quickly). If you think this readme file can be useful we can
>>> add it to RC4, otherwise just discard it.
>>>
>>> I should be able to further work on it in the weekend if needed.
>>> Probably on Sunday. Tomorrow is my birthday, so no work :-)
>>>
>>> Gualtiero
>>
>> zplane.development
>>> www.zplane.de
>> katzbachstr.21
>> d-10965 berlin
>>
>> fon: +49.30.854 09 15.0
>> fax: +49.30.854 09 15.5
>>
>> -------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> Take Surveys. Earn Cash. Influence the Future of IT
>> Join SourceForge.net's Techsay panel and you'll get the chance to
>> share your opinions on IT & business topics through brief surveys-and
>> earn cash
>> http://www.techsay.com/default.php?page=join.php&p=sourceforge&CID=DEVDEV
>> _______________________________________________
>> Feapi-discussion mailing list
>> Fea...@li...
>> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/feapi-discussion
> 
> 
> 
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Take Surveys. Earn Cash. Influence the Future of IT
> Join SourceForge.net's Techsay panel and you'll get the chance to share your
> opinions on IT & business topics through brief surveys-and earn cash
> http://www.techsay.com/default.php?page=join.php&p=sourceforge&CID=DEVDEV
> _______________________________________________
> Feapi-discussion mailing list
> Fea...@li...
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/feapi-discussion
> 

-- 
dipl. ing.
alexander lerch

zplane.development
:www.zplane.de
katzbachstr.21
d-10965 berlin

fon: +49.30.854 09 15.0
fax: +49.30.854 09 15.5

BTW, I don't think you have to modify the plugin's licenses. I think
they are all written by either Remy or myself.

Now that I think about it, the earliest possible date for the next
release candidate would be in about two weeks, since next week is
Musikmesse, and we are in the last stages of releasing our first plugin
instrument, so ....

Cheers,
(a)

Koen Tanghe wrote:
> By the way, I'll start with the source files first (.h,.cpp) and use the 
> SVN lock feature to avoid collisions ;-)
> Koen
> 
> 
> Koen Tanghe wrote, On 2007-03-23 11:44:
>> alexander lerch wrote, On 2007-03-23 11:16:
>>> So do you want to care about the license now, or should I go ahead with
>>> the release candidate? I want to avoid another update/rc clash, if possible.
>> Well, as you said, changing the license actually requires input from all 
>> contributors. But I guess everyone will agree that a pure BSD license is 
>> fine (without the added "must link" restriction).
>> If not, please raise your voice as soon as possible?
>> I will *now* start changing it everywhere to this:
>>
>> ------------- start of license ------------
>> Copyright (c) 2004-2007, FEAPI development team
>> All rights reserved.
>>
>> Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or without
>> modification, are permitted provided that the following conditions
>> are met:
>>
>> *   Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright
>>      notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer.
>> *   Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the above
>>      copyright notice, this list of conditions and the following
>>      disclaimer in the documentation and/or other materials
>>      provided with the distribution.
>> *   Neither the name of the FEAPI development team nor the names
>>      of its contributors may be used to endorse or promote products
>>      derived from this software without specific prior written
>>      permission.
>>
>> THIS SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED BY THE COPYRIGHT HOLDERS AND CONTRIBUTORS
>> "AS IS" AND ANY EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING, BUT NOT
>> LIMITED TO, THE IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS
>> FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE ARE DISCLAIMED. IN NO EVENT SHALL THE
>> COPYRIGHT OWNER OR CONTRIBUTORS BE LIABLE FOR ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT,
>> INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL, EXEMPLARY, OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES (INCLUDING,
>> BUT NOT LIMITED TO, PROCUREMENT OF SUBSTITUTE GOODS OR SERVICES;
>> LOSS OF USE, DATA, OR PROFITS; OR BUSINESS INTERRUPTION) HOWEVER
>> CAUSED AND ON ANY THEORY OF LIABILITY, WHETHER IN CONTRACT, STRICT
>> LIABILITY, OR TORT (INCLUDING NEGLIGENCE OR OTHERWISE) ARISING IN
>> ANY WAY OUT OF THE USE OF THIS SOFTWARE, EVEN IF ADVISED OF THE
>> POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGE.
>> -------------- end of license ------------
>>
>>
>> By the way, Alex, I do realize that this is a nice gesture of you and 
>> zplane, as you did most of the original work for FEAPI! I'd like to 
>> thank you for that!
>>
>> Koen
>>
>> -------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> Take Surveys. Earn Cash. Influence the Future of IT
>> Join SourceForge.net's Techsay panel and you'll get the chance to share your
>> opinions on IT & business topics through brief surveys-and earn cash
>> http://www.techsay.com/default.php?page=join.php&p=sourceforge&CID=DEVDEV
>> _______________________________________________
>> Feapi-discussion mailing list
>> Fea...@li...
>> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/feapi-discussion
>>
> 
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Take Surveys. Earn Cash. Influence the Future of IT
> Join SourceForge.net's Techsay panel and you'll get the chance to share your
> opinions on IT & business topics through brief surveys-and earn cash
> http://www.techsay.com/default.php?page=join.php&p=sourceforge&CID=DEVDEV
> _______________________________________________
> Feapi-discussion mailing list
> Fea...@li...
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/feapi-discussion
> 

-- 
dipl. ing.
alexander lerch

zplane.development
:www.zplane.de
katzbachstr.21
d-10965 berlin

fon: +49.30.854 09 15.0
fax: +49.30.854 09 15.5

> By the way, Alex, I do realize that this is a nice gesture of you and
> zplane, as you did most of the original work for FEAPI! I'd like to
> thank you for that! 

I associate myself in thanking!

Gualtiero

By the way, I'll start with the source files first (.h,.cpp) and use the 
SVN lock feature to avoid collisions ;-)
Koen

Koen Tanghe wrote, On 2007-03-23 11:44:
> alexander lerch wrote, On 2007-03-23 11:16:
>> So do you want to care about the license now, or should I go ahead with
>> the release candidate? I want to avoid another update/rc clash, if possible.
> 
> Well, as you said, changing the license actually requires input from all 
> contributors. But I guess everyone will agree that a pure BSD license is 
> fine (without the added "must link" restriction).
> If not, please raise your voice as soon as possible?
> I will *now* start changing it everywhere to this:
> 
> ------------- start of license ------------
> Copyright (c) 2004-2007, FEAPI development team
> All rights reserved.
> 
> Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or without
> modification, are permitted provided that the following conditions
> are met:
> 
> *   Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright
>      notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer.
> *   Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the above
>      copyright notice, this list of conditions and the following
>      disclaimer in the documentation and/or other materials
>      provided with the distribution.
> *   Neither the name of the FEAPI development team nor the names
>      of its contributors may be used to endorse or promote products
>      derived from this software without specific prior written
>      permission.
> 
> THIS SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED BY THE COPYRIGHT HOLDERS AND CONTRIBUTORS
> "AS IS" AND ANY EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING, BUT NOT
> LIMITED TO, THE IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS
> FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE ARE DISCLAIMED. IN NO EVENT SHALL THE
> COPYRIGHT OWNER OR CONTRIBUTORS BE LIABLE FOR ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT,
> INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL, EXEMPLARY, OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES (INCLUDING,
> BUT NOT LIMITED TO, PROCUREMENT OF SUBSTITUTE GOODS OR SERVICES;
> LOSS OF USE, DATA, OR PROFITS; OR BUSINESS INTERRUPTION) HOWEVER
> CAUSED AND ON ANY THEORY OF LIABILITY, WHETHER IN CONTRACT, STRICT
> LIABILITY, OR TORT (INCLUDING NEGLIGENCE OR OTHERWISE) ARISING IN
> ANY WAY OUT OF THE USE OF THIS SOFTWARE, EVEN IF ADVISED OF THE
> POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGE.
> -------------- end of license ------------
> 
> 
> By the way, Alex, I do realize that this is a nice gesture of you and 
> zplane, as you did most of the original work for FEAPI! I'd like to 
> thank you for that!
> 
> Koen
> 
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Take Surveys. Earn Cash. Influence the Future of IT
> Join SourceForge.net's Techsay panel and you'll get the chance to share your
> opinions on IT & business topics through brief surveys-and earn cash
> http://www.techsay.com/default.php?page=join.php&p=sourceforge&CID=DEVDEV
> _______________________________________________
> Feapi-discussion mailing list
> Fea...@li...
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/feapi-discussion
> 

alexander lerch wrote, On 2007-03-23 11:16:
> So do you want to care about the license now, or should I go ahead with
> the release candidate? I want to avoid another update/rc clash, if possible.

Well, as you said, changing the license actually requires input from all 
contributors. But I guess everyone will agree that a pure BSD license is 
fine (without the added "must link" restriction).
If not, please raise your voice as soon as possible?
I will *now* start changing it everywhere to this:

------------- start of license ------------
Copyright (c) 2004-2007, FEAPI development team
All rights reserved.

Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or without
modification, are permitted provided that the following conditions
are met:

*   Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright
     notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer.
*   Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the above
     copyright notice, this list of conditions and the following
     disclaimer in the documentation and/or other materials
     provided with the distribution.
*   Neither the name of the FEAPI development team nor the names
     of its contributors may be used to endorse or promote products
     derived from this software without specific prior written
     permission.

THIS SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED BY THE COPYRIGHT HOLDERS AND CONTRIBUTORS
"AS IS" AND ANY EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING, BUT NOT
LIMITED TO, THE IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS
FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE ARE DISCLAIMED. IN NO EVENT SHALL THE
COPYRIGHT OWNER OR CONTRIBUTORS BE LIABLE FOR ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT,
INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL, EXEMPLARY, OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES (INCLUDING,
BUT NOT LIMITED TO, PROCUREMENT OF SUBSTITUTE GOODS OR SERVICES;
LOSS OF USE, DATA, OR PROFITS; OR BUSINESS INTERRUPTION) HOWEVER
CAUSED AND ON ANY THEORY OF LIABILITY, WHETHER IN CONTRACT, STRICT
LIABILITY, OR TORT (INCLUDING NEGLIGENCE OR OTHERWISE) ARISING IN
ANY WAY OUT OF THE USE OF THIS SOFTWARE, EVEN IF ADVISED OF THE
POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGE.
-------------- end of license ------------

By the way, Alex, I do realize that this is a nice gesture of you and 
zplane, as you did most of the original work for FEAPI! I'd like to 
thank you for that!

Koen

fea...@li... wrote:
> That's a good idea.
> But I don't like the increasing number of txt-files in the main
> directory very much. Also, the text file seems pretty similar to the
> website; perhaps we should just add the html and can thus avoid that
> readme and website will move apart over time?

I also don't like to have too many txt files (even if at the moment the
proliferation is mainly due to the fact that we have 4 files for
licensing...).
We could merge history, license.overview, and readme in the html.
Pros: reduce the number of txt files and give direct access to docs
Cons: the html could become too lengthy and less effective

Anyway, I'm ok with this solution if you think it's better.

Gualtiero

> Gualtiero Volpe wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> I've just added a readme file for the FEAPI distributions.
>> In writing (or copy & paste ;-)) it, I followed the structure we
>> discussed some time ago. I also added some extra headings (e.g.,
>> About FEAPI, Contributors), since I've seen that these headings were
>> included in the VAMP readme and I think they may be useful for us
>> too.
>>
>> The text still needs some refinement and proof-reading (I did it
>> quite quickly). If you think this readme file can be useful we can
>> add it to RC4, otherwise just discard it.
>>
>> I should be able to further work on it in the weekend if needed.
>> Probably on Sunday. Tomorrow is my birthday, so no work :-)
>>
>> Gualtiero
>
>
> zplane.development
>> www.zplane.de
> katzbachstr.21
> d-10965 berlin
>
> fon: +49.30.854 09 15.0
> fax: +49.30.854 09 15.5
>
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Take Surveys. Earn Cash. Influence the Future of IT
> Join SourceForge.net's Techsay panel and you'll get the chance to
> share your opinions on IT & business topics through brief surveys-and
> earn cash
> http://www.techsay.com/default.php?page=join.php&p=sourceforge&CID=DEVDEV
> _______________________________________________
> Feapi-discussion mailing list
> Fea...@li...
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/feapi-discussion

That's a good idea.
But I don't like the increasing number of txt-files in the main
directory very much. Also, the text file seems pretty similar to the
website; perhaps we should just add the html and can thus avoid that
readme and website will move apart over time?

Cheers,
(a)

Gualtiero Volpe wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> I've just added a readme file for the FEAPI distributions.
> In writing (or copy & paste ;-)) it, I followed the structure we discussed
> some time ago.
> I also added some extra headings (e.g., About FEAPI, Contributors), since
> I've seen that these headings were included in the VAMP readme and I think
> they may be useful for us too.
> 
> The text still needs some refinement and proof-reading (I did it quite
> quickly). If you think this readme file can be useful we can add it to RC4,
> otherwise just discard it.
> 
> I should be able to further work on it in the weekend if needed.
> Probably on Sunday. Tomorrow is my birthday, so no work :-)
> 
> Gualtiero

-- 
dipl. ing.
alexander lerch

zplane.development
:www.zplane.de
katzbachstr.21
d-10965 berlin

fon: +49.30.854 09 15.0
fax: +49.30.854 09 15.5

So do you want to care about the license now, or should I go ahead with
the release candidate? I want to avoid another update/rc clash, if possible.

Cheers,
(a)

Koen Tanghe wrote:
> alexander lerch wrote, On 2007-03-22 12:12:
>> I do not remember the exact reasons why we selected only a modified BSD
>> license instead of a BSD license. If the only differences are the ones
>> you point out, then I have no objections to change it (except, perhaps,
>> to the work involved).
> 
> OK.
> 
>  > Also, all contributors have to agree to a license
>> change. If one objects, we will not be able to change the license.
> 
> That's right, yes.
> 
>> I have to admit that I would be too lazy to care about these things
>> right now. But if you want to do it, I won't object.
> 
> I think I could do it with a text block replacement tool.
> 
>> But I am pretty sure that as soon as you change only one word of the
>> license (besides the ones intended to change, of course) you will end up
>> with a *modified* license.
> 
> Which makes the efforts worthless, I can see your point.
> So, the only option would be to really dismiss of the "must link" 
> clause. Hmmm...
> It's just that "other/proprietary license" on SourceForge that bothers 
> me a bit... Might scare a lot of people...
> 
> Other people's opinions (apart from Gualtiero's and Alex')?
> 
> Koen
> 
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Take Surveys. Earn Cash. Influence the Future of IT
> Join SourceForge.net's Techsay panel and you'll get the chance to share your
> opinions on IT & business topics through brief surveys-and earn cash
> http://www.techsay.com/default.php?page=join.php&p=sourceforge&CID=DEVDEV
> _______________________________________________
> Feapi-discussion mailing list
> Fea...@li...
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/feapi-discussion
> 

-- 
dipl. ing.
alexander lerch

zplane.development
:www.zplane.de
katzbachstr.21
d-10965 berlin

fon: +49.30.854 09 15.0
fax: +49.30.854 09 15.5

Hi,

I've just added a readme file for the FEAPI distributions.
In writing (or copy & paste ;-)) it, I followed the structure we discussed
some time ago.
I also added some extra headings (e.g., About FEAPI, Contributors), since
I've seen that these headings were included in the VAMP readme and I think
they may be useful for us too.

The text still needs some refinement and proof-reading (I did it quite
quickly). If you think this readme file can be useful we can add it to RC4,
otherwise just discard it.

I should be able to further work on it in the weekend if needed.
Probably on Sunday. Tomorrow is my birthday, so no work :-)

Gualtiero

alexander lerch wrote, On 2007-03-22 12:12:
> I do not remember the exact reasons why we selected only a modified BSD
> license instead of a BSD license. If the only differences are the ones
> you point out, then I have no objections to change it (except, perhaps,
> to the work involved).

OK.

 > Also, all contributors have to agree to a license
> change. If one objects, we will not be able to change the license.

That's right, yes.

> I have to admit that I would be too lazy to care about these things
> right now. But if you want to do it, I won't object.

I think I could do it with a text block replacement tool.

> But I am pretty sure that as soon as you change only one word of the
> license (besides the ones intended to change, of course) you will end up
> with a *modified* license.

Which makes the efforts worthless, I can see your point.
So, the only option would be to really dismiss of the "must link" 
clause. Hmmm...
It's just that "other/proprietary license" on SourceForge that bothers 
me a bit... Might scare a lot of people...

Other people's opinions (apart from Gualtiero's and Alex')?

Koen

I do not remember the exact reasons why we selected only a modified BSD
license instead of a BSD license. If the only differences are the ones
you point out, then I have no objections to change it (except, perhaps,
to the work involved). Also, all contributors have to agree to a license
change. If one objects, we will not be able to change the license.

I have to admit that I would be too lazy to care about these things
right now. But if you want to do it, I won't object.

But I am pretty sure that as soon as you change only one word of the
license (besides the ones intended to change, of course) you will end up
with a *modified* license.

Cheers,
(a)

Gualtiero Volpe wrote:
> fea...@li... wrote:
>> I just noticed that on SourceForge, the FEAPI license is marked as
>> "other/proprietary", but it actually is a BSD-style license.
>> So I compared our current license with the BSD one:
>> 	http://www.opensource.org/licenses/bsd-license.php
>> and noticed these two differences:
>>
>> (1)
>> BSD:
>> *   Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the above
>>      copyright notice, this list of conditions and the following
>> FEAPI:
>> *   Redistributions in binary form must link to the feapi website
>>      http://www.sf.net/projects/feapi,
>>      reproduce this list of conditions and the following
>>
>> --> Wouldn't it be better to stick with the BSD version? Or do we
>> really need to have the link in there for some reason (by the way:
>> that link should be http://sourceforge.net/projects/feapi)? I agree
>> it would be nice to have the link in there (maybe I even suggested
>> that in the past myself, can't remember) but I'm not sure this "must
>> link" condition is worth more than having to categorize the license
>> under an "other/proprietary license". What do you guys think?
>>
>> (2)
>> BSD:
>> *   Neither the name of the <ORGANIZATION> nor the names of its
>> contributors may be used FEAPI:
>> *   The name of the contributors to this software must not be used
>>
>> --> Can we make this:
>> *   Neither the name of the FEAPI development team nor the names of
>> its contributors may be used
>>
>>
>> If we do want to keep in the link condition, I think it might be
>> better to keep the original BSD literal phrasing and add an extra *
>> that says:
>>
>> *   Redistributions in binary form must refer to the FEAPI website
>> http://sourceforge.net/projects/feapi in the documentation and/or
>> other materials provided with the distribution.
>>
>> That is: a normal BSD license with an extra web site referral
>> condition.
>>
>> Thoughts?
> 
> I agree with you, Koen.
> Your text for (2) is perfect for me.
> As for the link I would vote for your solution, i.e., keep the original BSD
> literal phrasing and add the extra *.
> If this still prevents us to change the "other/proprietary" category, I
> would remove the extra condition.
> What do you think?
> 
> Gualtiero
> 
> 
> 
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Take Surveys. Earn Cash. Influence the Future of IT
> Join SourceForge.net's Techsay panel and you'll get the chance to share your
> opinions on IT & business topics through brief surveys-and earn cash
> http://www.techsay.com/default.php?page=join.php&p=sourceforge&CID=DEVDEV
> _______________________________________________
> Feapi-discussion mailing list
> Fea...@li...
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/feapi-discussion
> 

-- 
dipl. ing.
alexander lerch

zplane.development
:www.zplane.de
katzbachstr.21
d-10965 berlin

fon: +49.30.854 09 15.0
fax: +49.30.854 09 15.5

fea...@li... wrote:
> I just noticed that on SourceForge, the FEAPI license is marked as
> "other/proprietary", but it actually is a BSD-style license.
> So I compared our current license with the BSD one:
> 	http://www.opensource.org/licenses/bsd-license.php
> and noticed these two differences:
>
> (1)
> BSD:
> *   Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the above
>      copyright notice, this list of conditions and the following
> FEAPI:
> *   Redistributions in binary form must link to the feapi website
>      http://www.sf.net/projects/feapi,
>      reproduce this list of conditions and the following
>
> --> Wouldn't it be better to stick with the BSD version? Or do we
> really need to have the link in there for some reason (by the way:
> that link should be http://sourceforge.net/projects/feapi)? I agree
> it would be nice to have the link in there (maybe I even suggested
> that in the past myself, can't remember) but I'm not sure this "must
> link" condition is worth more than having to categorize the license
> under an "other/proprietary license". What do you guys think?
>
> (2)
> BSD:
> *   Neither the name of the <ORGANIZATION> nor the names of its
> contributors may be used FEAPI:
> *   The name of the contributors to this software must not be used
>
> --> Can we make this:
> *   Neither the name of the FEAPI development team nor the names of
> its contributors may be used
>
>
> If we do want to keep in the link condition, I think it might be
> better to keep the original BSD literal phrasing and add an extra *
> that says:
>
> *   Redistributions in binary form must refer to the FEAPI website
> http://sourceforge.net/projects/feapi in the documentation and/or
> other materials provided with the distribution.
>
> That is: a normal BSD license with an extra web site referral
> condition.
>
> Thoughts?

I agree with you, Koen.
Your text for (2) is perfect for me.
As for the link I would vote for your solution, i.e., keep the original BSD
literal phrasing and add the extra *.
If this still prevents us to change the "other/proprietary" category, I
would remove the extra condition.
What do you think?

Gualtiero

2005	Jan	Feb	Mar (27)	Apr (2)	May (4)	Jun (2)	Jul	Aug	Sep	Oct	Nov	Dec
2006	Jan (64)	Feb (3)	Mar (103)	Apr (51)	May (21)	Jun (11)	Jul	Aug (25)	Sep (12)	Oct	Nov (18)	Dec (69)
2007	Jan (18)	Feb	Mar (61)	Apr (4)	May (4)	Jun	Jul	Aug	Sep (11)	Oct	Nov	Dec
2009	Jan	Feb	Mar	Apr	May	Jun	Jul	Aug	Sep	Oct (1)	Nov	Dec

feapi-discussion Mailing List for Feature Extraction plugin API (Page 2)

feapi-discussion — Discussions or questions about the API, its practical use, or anything related.