On Thu, Oct 25, 2012 at 1:11 AM, Patrick Shirkey wrote: > Anyway this situation is completely different. Fairlight are shipping > products that already use Linux software. They have a legal obligation > under the GPL. To you? Are you their client? >> Out of curiosity, why is it that every time some vendor makes use of >> free software, the first reaction is "hey, release source code"? >> >> Is it the only thing that interests you? >> > > No one did anything about Korg or Yamaha for all these years. What makes > you think that it's everyones first reaction? What makes you think I was referring to either Korg or Yamaha? > Look at Groove OS too. Rui and Christian fed back a huge amount of their > code into their existing open source solutions so nobody was upset if > Lionstracs didn't publicly release all their code in a single package. They still have the obligation, as you've just said yourself. You might as well go after them. Or are we back to the old tried double standards? :) > In this case Fairlight may just not be aware of their explicit legal > obligations. No one knows unless they ask. I don't see any harm if, for > example the Consortium sends a generic letter by email and physical copy > alerting them of their legal obligations and outlining the positive > aspects of doing the "Right Thing" (tm) That would be very nice and human. </sarcasm> Alexandre Prokoudine http://libregraphicsworld.org _______________________________________________ Linux-audio-user mailing list Linux-audio-user@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-user
