Re: development of vsta

Andy Valencia From: wrote:
> =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Erik_Dal=E9n?= <dalen@jpl.se> writes:
>
>
>>The development around vsta.quackerhead.com is going forward
>>independently. so far it's mostly Mark Ferrell's improvements to the
>>kernel. But it's basically a fork of vsta. So do you think it's ok to
>>still call it vsta or vsta 2.0 or something like that?
>
>
> Since there are (apparently) many technical changes--none which reflect any
> discussion with me--I would certainly request that they use a different name
> for the effort. The name VSTa is tied to my efforts at designing a
> microkernel, and if they respect my work enough to use it as a starting
> point for their own efforts, I hope they'd also afford me the consideration
> of letting the VSTa name I created only be associated with my own technical
> work. (In some suitable place in their distribution it'd be nice if they
> explained that their work used VSTa as its starting point.)

yep. there's a lot of discussion going on on the #vsta channel about it.
No decision yet though.
>
> Since this is the first real fork which has happened with VSTa, I should
> also note that I hold the copyright for the VSTa code, and would thus hold
> the copyright for their derivative work--this must be flagged in the code,
> and that's not a request, but a hard and fast legal requirement. Clearly,
> VSTa is available under GPL and thus they are free to offer their derived
> work also under those same GPL terms. But down the road they would *not* be
> free to decide to offer it under a different license (they would have to
> talk to me, as the copyright holder).

Of course.
However, it would be better to have a C library licensed under the LGPL.
  Is it all right for you to relicense that part?
There has been some discussions about separating the vsta specific parts
into a libvsta to aid using different C libraries like glibc or uclibc.
But it would be easier to just have it under LGPL.

regards
Erik Dalén
Received on Wed, 18 Aug 2004 23:09:23 +0200