On Wed, 2005-12-07 at 16:09 -0800, Mark Knecht wrote: > On 12/7/05, Lars Luthman <larsl@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Wed, 2005-12-07 at 14:04 -0800, Mark Knecht wrote: > > > LinuxSampler is a good program but has recently considered straying > > > from the Open Source model. Please read the License Agreement included in > > > the CVS version for more info. For these reasons I've ceased using it. My > > > comments are probably a bit dated these days as I've not tried or even > > > paid attention to the program in a few months. > > > > Their CVS server isn't responding, so I can't see the whole License > > Agreement. But I see this on the web page: > > > > LinuxSampler is licensed under the GNU GPL license with the exception > > that COMMERCIAL USE of the souce code, libraries and applications is > > NOT ALLOWED without prior written permission by the LinuxSampler > > authors. If you have questions on the subject please contact us. > > > > This is pretty nasty - if I interpret it correctly, it means that > > LinuxSampler is no longer free software (at least not as defined by the > > FSF, http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html ) and not even freeware, > > since a producer making commercial music would have to pay to use it. > > > > The LinuxSampler hackers are of course free to license their code any > > way they want, but I wish people who add this kind of exceptions to the > > GPL would call it something else instead of "GNU GPL with exception > > foo". That will just confuse people when the license is uncompatible > > with the GPL. > > Yep, this was the problem and you interpret it as many others do. The > Debian folks didn't like this so much that they dropped LS from their > releases. I think that the LS developers weren't taking the commercail > thing quite as far as you are. They seemed more interested in keeping > Synth manufacturers from using the code, which is disappointing sime a > good software company could pick this up and run with it quite > quickly. This would be great for us users, should they every do it. > > Note that this license modification was not in the latest official > release the last time I looked. It was only in the CVS version so > there is an opportunity to fork the database and put a development > team together to keep it truly Open Source, should someone care enough > to do so. When was that? A cvs snapshot that I packaged for experimental purposes dated 2005.01.20 does not have the "commercial usage" exception. Was there any "official" tarball release before 0.3.1? That one (and subsequent ones) come with the GPL but-not-really-GPL license. So no, it is not only CVS. -- Fernando
