Fernando Lopez-Lezcano wrote:
On Fri, 2006-04-21 at 01:14 +0100, Rui Nuno Capela wrote:
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 ;)
This is not the first time I see something like this posted on the
lists, sigh:
--------
tar
xvjf /projects/planet/source/rpms/linuxsampler/linuxsampler-0.3.3.tar.bz2
cd linuxsampler-0.3.3
more README
LinuxSampler - modular, streaming capable sampler
by Benno Senoner (benno@xxxxxxxxxxx)
and Christian Schoenebeck (cuse@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx)
This software is distributed under the GNU General Public License (see
COPYING file), and may not be used in commercial applications
without asking the authors for permission.
--------
so, AFAIK 0.3.3 is already not really GPL for the reasons already listed
in the thread.
Maybe I have the wrong tarball? (BTW, try to download 0.3.3 - let me
know how you manage to do that). If you go to the CVS site and browse
the 0.3.3 release branch you get the same thing in the README.
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?
Not really, I keep seeing the above referenced README in 0.3.3. So,
unless I'm missing something, please stop saying that this is only
happening in CVS.
Now you tell me :)
OK. I've done some homework now :) In fact, that infamous README
paragraph has been literally just like that since LS dawn (somewhere
around fall 2003). I'll repeat it here:
Old Linuxsampler README License, until 0.3.3 inclusive:
...
This software is distributed under the GNU General Public License
(see COPYING file), and may not be used in commercial applications
without asking the authors for permission.
...
That was is in fact loose and naive. But IANAL.
Then, almost after the 0.3.3 release, someone relative to debian and
GPL-purism raised the question, leading to all this fuss, and that
paragrah was promptly changed to the EXCEPTIONal one, as is today in
CVS. It is no better, I believe, but it makes a stronger position.
Current Linuxsampler README License, as is on CVS HEAD today:
...
License
-------
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.
...
I'll give you my apologies, as my prior allegations have no defense at
the face of the letter. Anyway, the understanding I've wrote is the one
to stick with, as I believe is the same as the LS developers'
disposition, me included:)
Bye now.
--
rncbc aka Rui Nuno Capela
rncbc@xxxxxxxxx
