On Thu, 08 Dec 2005 08:33:58 +0000, Pete Leigh wrote: > On 08/12/05, Paul Davis > <paul@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> there is more going on there than almost nobody on this list except for >> the LS authors and myself is aware of. it would be wise for everyone to >> not judge this admittedly very unpleasant change in the license without >> being aware of the reasons why it occured. unfortunately, it is not >> possible to explain any more. > > Still, without explaining any more, would it be an idea for the authors to > indicate what their likely response would be under some easily imaginable > scenarios, like: "I'm about to release a commercial album where linux > sampler was used in production. May I?" >From my understanding, it is the commercial exploitation of the software, rather than the sale of music written with the software that they are trying to limit: so if you were to build a linux based synth, and sell it with LS installed, they would like to get some money from you for it, which they would not be able to do under the GPL. James
