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
