[MPlayer-cvslog] CVS: main/libaf af_hrtf.c, 1.4, 1.5 af_hrtf.h, 1.1, 1.2

[Diego Biurrun]

Diego Biurrun writes:
> Reimar Döffinger writes:
> > On Fri, Jan 14, 2005 at 01:59:14AM +0100, Diego Biurrun wrote:
> > > Jindrich Makovicka CVS writes:
> > > > 
> > > > Modified Files:
> > > > 	af_hrtf.c af_hrtf.h 
> > > > Log Message:
> > > > license issues clarified
> > > > 
> > > > --- af_hrtf.c	29 Dec 2004 19:50:44 -0000	1.4
> > > > +++ af_hrtf.c	6 Jan 2005 13:14:30 -0000	1.5
> > > > @@ -340,15 +340,6 @@
> > > >      af_hrtf_t *s;
> > > >      float fc;
> > > >  
> > > > -    af_msg(AF_MSG_INFO,
> > > > -	   "[hrtf] Head related impulse response (HRIR) derived from KEMAR measurement\n"
> > > > -	   "[hrtf] data by Bill Gardner <billg at media.mit.edu>\n"
> > > > -	   "[hrtf] and Keith Martin <kdm at media.mit.edu>.\n"
> > > > -	   "[hrtf] This data is Copyright 1994 by the MIT Media Laboratory.  It is\n"
> > > > -	   "[hrtf] provided free with no restrictions on use, provided the authors are\n"
> > > > -	   "[hrtf] cited when the data is used in any research or commercial application.\n"
> > > > -	   "[hrtf] URL: http://sound.media.mit.edu/KEMAR.html\n");
> > > > -
> > > >      af->control = control;
> > > >      af->uninit = uninit;
> > > >      af->play = play;
> > > > 
> > > > --- af_hrtf.h	20 Nov 2004 14:40:52 -0000	1.1
> > > > +++ af_hrtf.h	6 Jan 2005 13:14:30 -0000	1.2
> > > > @@ -31,6 +31,8 @@
> > > >     application."
> > > >  
> > > >     URL: http://sound.media.mit.edu/KEMAR.html
> > > > +
> > > > +   Distributed under GPL with authors' permission
> > > 
> > > The above notice that you removed from af_hrtf.c is present in
> > > af_hrtf.h as well.  You will need to remove it from there as well for
> > > this to be GPL compatible.
> > 
> > I vote for leaving the authors names and their original terms in, but
> > stating that we got permission to distribute as GPL regardless of those
> > terms.
> > What do you think?
> 
> The problem is that the GPL and the original licensing terms are
> mutually exclusive.  The result of your suggestion is confusing at
> best.  We've had enough legal uncertainties, let's not add another
> chapter.  If somebody prefers the original terms, let them go to the
> above mentioned URL.  We should only distribute GPL and GPL-compatible
> code.  Also right now the situation is inconsistent since the original
> terms were removed from one file and not the other.

This issue still hasn't been resolved.  IMO this notice is
incompatible with the GPL and needs to be removed or the file
removed.  We have permission from the authors to distribute under
GPL.  What's holding this up?

Diego