Gene Heskett wrote:
On Thursday 20 April 2006 11:03, Dave Phillips wrote:
Frank Barknecht wrote:
According to their words: "COMMERCIAL USE of the souce code,
libraries and applications is NOT ALLOWED without prior written
permission by the LinuxSampler authors" no professional musician is
allowed to use LinuxSampler except with a written permission.
Frank, where did you get this text ? It's not the text I quoted from
the LS README :
"The LinuxSampler library (liblinuxsampler) and its applications are
distributed under the terms of the GNU General Public License (see
COPYING file), but with the EXCEPTION that they may NOT be used in
COMMERCIAL software or hardware products without prior written
authorization by the authors."
Its my understanding of the GPL that you CANNOT apply additional
restrictions and still call it "GPL".
I'd suggest they consult with an attorney before they write such
foolery.
This is from recent CVS sources.
Best,
dp
People, please calm down.
I gotta repeat my own understanding of this issue, but I think it all
boils down to this:
a) linuxsampler-0.3.3 is the last known public release; as is, its pure
GPL, everyone if free to fork it according to FSF legalese ;)
b) linuxsampler CVS HEAD (IOW, all source code in CVS since 0.3.3
release) is the one which The-Rather-Illegal-GPL-Exception applies;
thats actually intentional; if you're a distro packager, do NOT pick it!
being you debianese or not :) unless you get the explicit LS-devel
permission to do it, of course, as stated on the infamous exception.
Is that clear?
I'm sure that, when LS gets mature enough for next release, a new and
lean open-source license will come to light.
Cheers.
--
rncbc aka Rui Nuno Capela
rncbc@xxxxxxxxx
