Re: MusicKit licensing

[Leigh Smith]

> The SndKit SndMeter.m file states:
> <quote>
> * "Portions Copyright (c) 1999 Apple Computer, Inc.  All Rights
>  * Reserved.  This file contains Original Code and/or Modifications of
>  * Original Code as defined in and that are subject to the Apple Public
>  * Source License Version 1.0 (the 'License').  You may not use this 
> file
>  * except in compliance with the License.  Please obtain a copy of the
>  * License at http://www.apple.com/publicsource and read it before 
> using
>  * this file.
> </quote>
>
> Which, while talking to Apple, could probably be resolved by using 
> APSL 2.0

Once again, there is quite a historical tale to tell :-)

Stephen Brandon while at the University of Glasgow, wrote the SndKit as 
an open source duplicate of NeXT's SoundKit which was then closed 
source. Only days before the final release, Apple placed the SoundKit 
on APSL 1.0. In a couple of cases we incorporated a couple of files, 
soundstruct.h and SndMeter.m from the SoundKit into the SndKit 
distribution. As I understand it, this does not contravene the APSL 1.0 
since we preserved their copyrights. However, as you have pointed out, 
this does encumber the SndKit distribution while those files continue 
to have to be distributed. Note that the SoundKit may well now be 
distributed under APSL 2.0, I just haven't checked and transported over 
the new copyright statement to the files distributed under the SndKit.

> SndKit and MKPerformSndMIDI both contain such copyright statements. 
> (example MKPerformSndMIDI: soundstruct.h)
The two cases you cite can be addressed fairly straightforwardly.

For technical reasons we are in the process of phasing out soundstructs 
in entirety. The rate at which this progresses is dependent on the 
number of contributors :^) There is a bit of work required rewriting 
several methods in Snd.m, SndView.m and SndFunctions.m to replace 
SndSoundStructs with NSData and SndFormat objects and structs, but it's 
not massive and something that is already underway and improves the 
system anyway. Developers with a real need to clear themselves of the 
APSL license while using the SndKit are invited to contribute time or 
money to musickit.org to aid this work.

SndMeter.m is as it stands non-functional. It's actually just there for 
reference as to how sound meters were done in the SoundKit which is now 
very different internally to the SndKit, which uses a streaming 
architecture, written mostly by Skot McDonald. It's trivial to drop 
SndMeter.m from compilation or distribution, or as is planned, rewrite 
to work as a subclass of the new SndStreamClient class.

> If you could resolve these issues with Apple: great!
>
> I think that LGPL would solve all your issues, but can imagine that 
> Apple would like to use their APSL.

Jeff Teunissen wrote:

> If the MusicKit developers have no explicit permission to place the 
> NeXT and
> Apple portions of the work under the MusicKit license, then the 
> license on
> the work as a whole is invalid.

The MusicKit project currently distributes the code that CCRMA 
distributed under their agreement with NeXT. In effect we are a mirror 
site of CCRMA's distribution, together with a (massive) set of patches 
which are distributed under our own license, which does not contradict 
the license CCRMA distributed under. This why the license statement on 
musickit.org reproduces the original distribution statement that CCRMA 
provided when they made the source available, as well as the current 
license that covers all modifications to the V4.2 distribution. You 
therefore use the code subject to two (distinct but closely matching) 
licenses, those lines of code provided by CCRMA under the 4.2 license, 
and those patches provided by the MusicKit project under the current 
MusicKit Project license. diff is your friend :-)

The complication has arisen from that it seems there was a time limit 
to the NeXT <-> CCRMA agreement, which was not publicly declared in 
CCRMA's distribution (or anywhere else). This then means ownership of 
the code as delivered to CCRMA by NeXT (which was, as best as I can 
determine, version 3.0 code) reverts back to NeXT (now Apple). So there 
then needs to be another agreement reached, mostly between Apple and 
CCRMA, to license the V3.0 code and then to allow CCRMA to reassert a 
distribution license. These days there are common models of open source 
distribution, so in theory something can be arrived at with less 
special purpose legal agreements - but then, I'm not a lawyer and after 
this episode, I never want to be...
--
Leigh Smith
mailto:leigh@leighsmith.com
http://www.leighsmith.com