On Fri, May 2, 2008 at 4:38 AM, Dave Phillips <dlphillips@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Dave Phillips wrote: > > I'd rather know than guess, so okay, I'll take it on myself to contact > > someone at the FSF about the acceptability of the current LS license wrt > > the GPL. > > > I've written to compliance@xxxxxxx and asked them to issue a > determination regarding LS's commercial exception clause. Specifically > I've asked whether it is a violation of the GPL. I asked only regarding > the linuxsampler component, since all other parts of the project are > covered by the GPL with no exceptions (a point usually left unstated). > > I await their judgment. > > Thank you Dave. I looked at the FSF website last night and wondered about two things: 1) What you've asked them is about the license itself. Can author's change parts of it on a whim? Can author's require their users comply with part of the license but not with others. Those are interesting questions. 2) From my specific point of view, I have a bunch of code which was obtained from a CVS server and has a GPL license file included. Does that make all the software GPL? Probably not. How does one determine whether each and every file is covered under GPL? Does each file need to have a header that says it's released under GPL? If a file has no headers at all and was released to the public does that mean it has no protection? Can and will the FSF do checking of a package like this to tell me what is or isn't GPL in this set of files? >From my point of view I'd like to know if we can start a clean project at this point. I'm not ready to invest a lot of my time as I'm not really qualified to say. Maybe they can help? Let us know what sort of answer your receive, and should a lawyer type person want or need to look at the code I'd have no problems sending a copy. Cheers, Mark _______________________________________________ Linux-audio-user mailing list Linux-audio-user@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.linuxaudio.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-audio-user
