Re: Pre-License change LinuxSampler code

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On Thursday 01 May 2008 19:59, Mark Knecht wrote:
>    Again, I do NOT guarantee that this fork is completely GPL.

The LS people are now claiming in their FAQ that the non-commercial 
restriction was always there, and even that "that commercial 
exception was even already in Benno Senoner's proof of concept code 
called "EVO", which LinuxSampler was based on".

I don't know when that claim went up, but it was sometime after August 
2007 and before 5 minutes ago (thank you, archive.org.)  Shades of 
SCO.  "Who cares what you downloaded?  This is what we MEANT to say 
in our license..."  

We can claim they purged the old history out of their CVS and they can 
claim we fabricated a GPL-compliant version of their source tree.  
All that means is when they try to sue Lionstracs or whoever 
eventually gets their manties in a bunch, they won't have any 
FSF-related legal resources at their disposal (oddly enough, the 
defendant very well might), they'll probably lose due to this murky 
situation, and the GPL will appear weaker in the press despite not 
actually being at issue.

Before you respond to that troll from earlier this evening, by the 
way, search your archives.

Rob
_______________________________________________
Linux-audio-user mailing list
Linux-audio-user@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.linuxaudio.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-audio-user

[Index of Archives]     [Linux Sound]     [ALSA Users]     [Pulse Audio]     [ALSA Devel]     [Sox Users]     [Linux Media]     [Kernel]     [Photo Sharing]     [Gimp]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux Media]

  Powered by Linux