rosea grammostola wrote: > frank pirrone wrote: > >> drew Roberts wrote: >> >> >>> On Friday 15 January 2010 00:45:12 frank pirrone wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>>> Well, I may have misstated the actual "working rules." The original >>>> gathering in 2008 committed to Linux, so Open Source as a requirement >>>> may not be in effect this time around. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >From our front page: >>> >>> "The purpose of our band is to free music. We want to be able to play what we >>> want, using Free Software tools, and allow others to take that music and do >>> with it what they want. Feel free to check out our Current events and see >>> what we are up to right now. " >>> >>> I think it was Free music with Free tools from the break. >>> >>> >>> >> I stand clarified. Freedom was even our "theme" for RPM09, and our CC >> by SA further indication... >> >> >> > Is LinuxSampler considered to be Free? > And can you use commercial samples for Hydrogen? > > \r > Drew's voice is more authoritative than mine by virtue of his deeper involvement in these issues, but since you replied to my message, I'd say if it's GPL or LGPL it's free - along with other acceptable licenses such as Apache and BSD or whatever that wouldn't likely apply to the audio software we're talking about. If it's not, it's not. I mean, Rosea, the point is clearer than the means of circumventing or obfuscating it: The original collaboration was based upon having everything be Free - the OS, the apps, the libraries, samples, and not least the work itself. We wanted to do that for philosophical reasons and for reasons of advocacy, and as Kevin suggests, to simply demonstrate that it could be done. We produced some pretty good music, IMHO, and enjoyed each other's company, and had some real fun along the way. If that isn't proof of concept I don't know what else would be. Frank _______________________________________________ Linux-audio-user mailing list Linux-audio-user@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-user
