Re: Back again

On 2013-Jul-23, Sven Panne and/or a Mail User Agent wrote:
> 2013/7/22 Jason Dagit <[email protected]>:
> > [...]. It looks like OpenAL is now proprietary. (See
> > license information: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OpenAL). So I don't
> > really know if it makes sense to bother with OpenAL bindings. I know
> > several folks have stopped considering it completely.
> 
> As a previous maintainer of the OpenAL SI, this saddens me... :-( I
> didn't follow the OpenAL changes lately, but I should probably do that
> now. At least OpenAL Soft seems to be still alive, and it is the
> default implementation installed on my Ubuntu box. So it probably
> makes at least some sense to fix the OpenAL binding, and it shouldn't
> be too hard.
> 

The Wikipedia article points out that the _implementation_ of OpenAL
by Creative Technology has gone proprietary (how dare they continue
to call it "Open" AL!) but that the _other implementation_ called 
"OpenAL Soft" is open source.

Wikipedia's link to OpenALSoft is dead; plausible alternatives
include

- http://sourceforge.net/projects/openal-soft/
  ("License: GNU Library or Lesser General Public License version 2.0 (LGPLv2)"
- http://kcat.strangesoft.net/openal.html
  - referenced from http://opensource.creative.com/pipermail/openal/2012-March/012511.html
- http://repo.or.cz/w/openal-soft.git

I wonder if people have stopped using OpenAL because they
don't know about OpenAL Soft or because there is something
inferior about it.

***

And -- delightful to see you back, Sven!

-- 
Gregory D. Weber, Ph. D.                  http://mypage.iu.edu/~gdweber/
Associate Professor of Informatics        Tel (765) 973-8420
Indiana University East                   FAX (765) 973-8550