On Fri, 2006-12-15 at 11:07 -0700, Garett Shulman wrote: > Lars Luthman wrote: > > On Fri, 2006-12-15 at 17:40 +0000, James Stone wrote: > > > >>> I hate to be a jerk and crap on someone's project, but this is a > >>> clear violation of the GPL. Here's some GPL FAQs that explain this: > >>> > >>> https://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/gpl-faq.html#DoesTheGPLAllowMoney > >>> https://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/gpl-faq.html#TOCDoesTheGPLAllowNDA > >>> https://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/gpl-faq.html#TOCOrigBSD > >>> > >>> Software freedom zero requires that a program be usable for any > >>> purpose whatsoever with no restrictions or limitations. Of course if > >>> I produce a hardware device that uses a modified LinuxSampler, my > >>> modifications are required to be free software. > >>> > >> I agree it is a shame LS is not Free Software, but it is free as > >> in beer, and open source, and is a really nice piece of > >> programming. > >> > > > > I'm not so sure that it is open source as it stands now. Paragraph 7 of > > the GPL says: > > > > "If, as a consequence of a court judgment or allegation of patent > > infringement or for any other reason (not limited to patent issues), > > conditions are imposed on you (whether by court order, agreement or > > otherwise) that contradict the conditions of this License, they do not > > excuse you from the conditions of this License. If you cannot distribute > > so as to satisfy simultaneously your obligations under this License and > > any other pertinent obligations, then as a consequence you may not > > distribute the Program at all." > > > > So if you are not allowed to distribute LinuxSampler for commercial > > purposes you are not allowed to distribute it at all. I'm sure this is > > not what the LinuxSampler people intend, but as the license stands now > > it is inconsistent and, according to paragraph 7 of the GPL, invalid - > > which means that normal copyright law applies, without any extra > > freedoms at all. > > > > But you are right that this has been discussed to death several times > > already, and if the LinuxSampler authors haven't fixed the license by > > now they are probably not going to do it in the forseeable future > > either. I withdraw from the discussion. > > > > > Well... If LS links to GPL code that it's authors do not own the > copyright to than this is true. However, as a copyright owner of code > that does not link to any GPL code you are free to release software > under absolutely whatever license you choose... including 'almost > exactly GPL but with x, y, & z differences'. Trolltech licesenses their > code under two different licenses, GPL, & a non-GPL license. But because > they own the copyright to their code this is not a problem. I don't mean that they are violating any license themselves, they are of course allowed to do whatever they want with the code that they wrote. I mean that the current license (GPL + inconsistent add-on) can be interpreted as saying that no one is allowed to distribute LinuxSampler at all except the people that already have that right without any licensing (the authors). -- Lars Luthman - please encrypt any email sent to me if possible PGP key: http://pgp.mit.edu:11371/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0x04C77E2E Fingerprint: FCA7 C790 19B9 322D EB7A E1B3 4371 4650 04C7 7E2E
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
