On Wed, 2007-10-17 at 19:25 +0200, Arnold Krille wrote: > > I am not a lawyer, but neither the COPYING-file nor the (randomly > picked) > src/linuxsampler.cpp state anything but gplv2 (or later) for the > license. > The README states something about getting the authors authorization to > use the > app in commercial software or hardware. While I think this is some > legit > modification because they don't want their work to be used > commercially > without them knowing, I don't think this rule applies as they probably > didn't > ask all the participating authors (and the AUTHORS file states quite a > few) > for their permission to change the license. This additional restriction (no commercial use without explicit permissions from the authors) has two problems: 1) It means that the software is not free as defined by the Free Software Foundation and GNU Project. It goes against Freedom 2 of the Free Software Definition[1]. A practical example of the problems this creates is that a Linux distribution such as Fedora can not include LinuxSampler because they place no restriction on end users making copies and selling them - is this commercial software in the eyes of the Linux Sampler developers? 2) The inclusion of the additional restriction means that LinuxSampler cannot be distributed under a licence that is called the GPL. The GPL FAQ[2] is quite clear on this. Additionally the FAQ states that software distributed under the GPL + restrictions cannot be linked to libraries under the GPL because the new licence (GPL + restrictions) is almost certainly incompatible with the GPL. Keith. [1] http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html [2] http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#ModifyGPL _______________________________________________ Linux-audio-user mailing list Linux-audio-user@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.linuxaudio.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-audio-user
