Can I please be allowed to mention linuxsampler on the linux-audio-user list without the thread devolving into Yet Another License Argument? Please change the subject line. Thank you. -PW On Fri, Dec 15, 2006 at 11:24:51AM -0700, Garett Shulman wrote: > Lars Luthman wrote: > >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). > > > > > Oh... I see. Hm... That's interesting. -- Paul Winkler http://www.slinkp.com
