On Thu August 24 2006 15:53, Lee Revell wrote: > Yes, it is open source (the source is avaliable - QED). It's > not GPL or free software. 1. Linuxsampler is not "open source" any more than Microsoft's "shared source" initiative releases "open source" software. The term "open source" is a trademark of the Open Source Initiative, and as regards software licenses, it may only be used to refer to licenses conforming to the Open Source Definition created by OSI. Linuxsampler doesn't conform, because of section 6 in the OSD: "The license must not restrict anyone from making use of the program in a specific field of endeavor. For example, it may not restrict the program from being used in a business, or from being used for genetic research." So if they are calling themselves open source (note: I don't think they are) then they would be violating the trademark of Eric Raymond and his buddies. On the other hand, I have no idea whether the OSI has gone after violators of its trademark the way the FSF has gone after GPL violations on software to which it holds the copyright. Trademarks can be diluted, as you just did ever-so-slightly with your assertion above. 2. The GNU GPL itself, meaning the actual text of the license, is not in the public domain. While Linuxsampler is probably not itself violating the GPL (assuming they either wrote all their own code or got all contributors to sign off on the license change.... if it's your code, even RMS will say you can license it however you want), they are, to all appearances, violating the FSF's copyright on the text of the GPL itself. I just grabbed a copy of their source and the COPYING file is an untouched copy of the GPL, which is fine, but then in their README they just have an additional sentence saying it may not be used commercially. If the README can't be considered part of the license, then Linuxsampler is being distributed under the GPL no matter what their intent. (See also: SCO.) On the other hand, if the README *can* be considered part of the GPL, it sure looks like they're violating the FSF's terms of use on the GPL (as opposed to the terms of the GPL): http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#ModifyGPL "You can use the GPL terms (possibly modified) in another license provided that you call your license by another name and do not include the GPL preamble, and provided you modify the instructions-for-use at the end enough to make it clearly different in wording and not mention GNU (though the actual procedure you describe may be similar)." Note that the above isn't any sort of official license to the GPL: officially, the only way to use the GPL as your program's license is verbatim without any additional restrictions, though you can make exceptions that give the licensees additional freedoms. I read the above FAQ entry as a "we won't sue you if....." sort of thing. I know this has been discussed on the list previously, but I searched the archive for mentions of these two specific issues and there were none. I have an actual lawyer for when my understanding of licenses like this will impact my business. I don't care about Linuxsampler enough to spend the money and ask him about this, especially when someone's bound to bump into Larry Lessig or someone someday and ask him for free, but I feel pretty confident about what I've said. Confident enough that if I were working on a Linux-based hardware DAW to sell commercially, I would probably take my chances and just use Linuxsampler. I'd be more afraid of the mysterious gag-order-inducing entity that started all of this than of the Linuxsampler guys. If it was, as some people have supposed, a patent infringement situation, Linuxsampler can't be redistributed under the GPL by anyone knowing about the patent in the first place, regardless of any attempts to add additional restrictions. Rob
