On Sat, 2005-12-10 at 20:49 +0000, Pete Leigh wrote: > On 10/12/05, James Stone <jmstone@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Thu, 08 Dec 2005 08:33:58 +0000, Pete Leigh wrote: > > > > 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. > > Hi James, > > I hope (and am quite prepared to believe) you're right. Just that it > doesn't specifically say that - it just says "commercial use [...] is > not allowed", which is a little vague. That's why I'm suggesting a > clarification for those unwilling to make assumptions might be > a good idea :-) > Rather than speculate any further someone really should ask them. If they mean "commercial distribution of the software" they need to say that rather than "commercial use" which I suspect is too vague to have an unambiguous legal definition. Lee
