On Thu, 2008-05-01 at 20:56 -0700, Mark Knecht wrote: > On Thu, May 1, 2008 at 8:16 PM, Paul Coccoli <pcoccoli@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Thu, May 1, 2008 at 7:59 PM, Mark Knecht <markknecht@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > My only requirements in providing this code are: > > > > > > 1) Some sort of ongoing SourceForge or other publicly available > > > location for the project needs to be created and maintained by a small > > > group of project managers committed to the project. Responsibilities > > > and duties to be agreed upon. > > > > So which clause of the license gives you the right to distribute with > > additional requirements? > > > > None, but I have no responsibility to distribute it either. If someone > convinces me that they intend to keep the project GPL, accept a copy > fro me, and then they don't keep it as a GPL project then shame on > them but I probably wouldn't have any rights to enforce the agreement > myself. Maybe the FSF would. I don't know. That's for lawyers. > > > > > > 2) The license for this fork must remain completely GPL forever. > > > Should someone want to make a commercial product from this fork then > > > the license should allow them to at least try. I expect they will run > > > into the same issues, whatever they were, that the original > > > LinuxSampler team had, but I do not want the license for this code to > > > prohibit them from trying and at least we'll get the issues out on the > > > table publicly. > > > > If you are not the copyright holder, how can you require that the > > license not be changed? > > Well, I cannot require it legally. However I won't give anything out > without the recipient > > > > > Shoudl you decide to redistribute this code, I would like a copy, > > subject only to the terms under which it is licensed. > > > > Those are the only terms I would distribute it. I'm not changing > ANYTHING in the license or indeed anything in ANY file. I have a copy, > properly obtained through the LS CVS server at a time when the project > seemed to claim GPL compliance. Every file seems to claim it's GPL to > be used as GPL. I don't claim there isn't something down deeper. There > may be. If I get time I might go looking for info inside the files to > argue against it's GPL heritage but for now it looks like pretty much > every other Open Source project I've looked at. > > Again, I'm only saying I have a copy and could possibly be convinced > to provide it to others who are serious about making forward progress. > I REALLY don't think the casual user should use this code. At the time > I go this the project wasn't all that stable and lacked really > important features, some of which I think have been added in the > non-commercial, maybe GPL version. > > Cheers, > Mark Hi Mark, I've seen your posts on several mailing lists over the years and I'd just like to say that I've always found them to be intelligent and reasonable. I'm sorry that there always seem to be people who like confrontation instead of trying to move forward on any given issue. The LinuxSampler license is an example of someone trying to break that which holds the linux community together, which is the GPL. I don't feel that they are bad or wrong, and they have a right to make LinuxSampler completely commercial should they care to do so, but I must say that I need and use this program and it's been quite a headache for certain distributions because of the licensing. This is just a note of encouragement for you and a request to others; please let's just make everything in linux work. Respectfully, Arthur _______________________________________________ Linux-audio-user mailing list Linux-audio-user@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.linuxaudio.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-audio-user
