On Wed, Dec 29, 2010 at 09:31:03PM +0000, Andrew C wrote: > Last time I checked, LS is Open Source, but just not completely GPL. > Which isn't really much of an issue unless you want to sell embedded > hardware that runs LS of course. The problem with LinuxSampler license has been discused many times, it is a bit more complex that that. The problem is that adding an additional restriction to the GPL makes the license self contradictory and the software becomes "undistributable" (that's why Debian removed it also from its non-free repository). It is explained in the official GPL FAQ: Q: I'd like to license my code under the GPL, but I'd also like to make it clear that it can't be used for military and/or commercial uses. Can I do this? A: No, because those two goals contradict each other. The GNU GPL is designed specifically to prevent the addition of further restrictions [...] They should have chosen a proprietary license, free for no commercial, to achive what they want while avoidind the GPL in their code. Of course many people (me included) would prefer it to be pure GPL, but a proprietary license would be much better that the current situation. _______________________________________________ Linux-audio-user mailing list Linux-audio-user@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-user
