>> The trouble with using a similar license for LS is a major potential >> commercial implementation (including it in hardware) would not have to >> pay anything for using LS code.. > > And how much code are they depending on that they are not paying for? > Do you mean the LS project? Do you mean library dependencies? As far as I know the authors of LS wrote all the libraries they depend on themselves.. which are licensed for distribution under proper GPL (but of course as they wrote them they do not have to abide by these conditions - hence being able to link a more restrictive program - LS to GPLed libraries). I am skimming over the fact the LS license is considered broken by many - I am just trying to state what I understand the authors' intentions were.. If you mean the LS project, and the other free software they use - gcc etc. Then you have a point, but people are allowed to release both free and less-free software - after all, they have the right to try to make money out of their efforts.. and they did release all the libraries under GPL.. My experience from the mailing list is the LS developers are a very reasonable and helpful bunch, and they aren't out to get one over on anyone.. It is possible that they might be willing to fully GPL the LS code in exchange for some community based funding... James _______________________________________________ Linux-audio-user mailing list Linux-audio-user@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.linuxaudio.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-audio-user
