Re: [LAD] [OT] LinuxSampler and GPL - some clarifications

> 1. usage of a computer program licensed under the terms of GPL in a hardware
> product, whether modified or not, is not a distribution of a computer
> program licensed under the terms of GPL, and is thus prohibited by GPL.

I don't follow you there. Why the exception you mention (selling
computers with Linux preinstalled) is indeed a exception and not the
rule?

As I see it, where it really matters, LS is Open Source and Free
Software, whatever the FSF, the OSI or anyone else says. No matter how
it is worded, the only freedom the LS authors are trying to keep from
you is the one to make a direct commercial profit of their hard work
without giving back to the community, with seems to me more than fair
enough and quite worthy of openishness and freeishness.

You have the sources, you can improve them, you can fork the project
provided you keep a compatible license... It intends to encourage the
sharing of any potential improvement of the sw more strongly than the
GPL. What's not free or open there? The only absolutely free license
is PD, every other one has some restriction or another.

This interpretation is clear from their FAQ and I can't fathom what
can be seen as misleading in it. It is clearly not GPL, but GPL-based.
So what? If GPL was The-Only-Rightful-Way there wouldn't be any other
gazillion of licenses more or less based on it. Just call it the LS
license.

However, I also don't think the (in)famous GPL exception is strictly
necessary, effective or useful. I will explain:

Let's say two imaginary companies, Amaha and Boland, decide to market
an equivalent model of hw sampler. After a market study they reach the
conclusion that to make a good enough business they must sell the hw
at 2000 GP (RPG gamers know what kind currency GP is :-) If they also
develop a custom controller software they must add 1000 GP to the
retail price.

Amaha develops both hw and sw and sells its sampler at 3000 GP. Boland
uses LS but tries to squeeze the market value and make an unfair extra
benefit out if it and sells its product at 2900 GP.

This is plain stealing, and it is what the LS guys try to prevent. I
think they are violating the plain GPL here, since they are not
charging 'reasonable' costs for distributing a GPLd software, but it
will be hard and costly to prove it in court. They can always make up
the numbers or claim that 900 GP is a rightful extra profit for the hw
if the market allows it. I don't know how effective the additional
exception can prove in this situation, but it is probably better than
nothing.

However, it will work only once. If Boland sampler is successful
enough how long will it take to Amaha to market their own LS-based
version and sell it at little more than 2000 GP?

In this later case, my interpretation is that they are in the same
situation as a PC retailer selling Linux computers, and thus are not
making an unfair profit, so this should not bother LS authors since
Amaha is giving back to the community by manufacturing and selling
cheaper products and not directly benefiting from their work.

xjadeo is a GPL sw Robin Gareus and I developed and now is included,
together with some more worthy software (linux kernel, ardour...) in a
commercial audio console. I want to believe that the market itself it
is protecting the community of being ripped off, because justice is
unfortunately different than legality and we have no means to prevent
it.

I think this is a discussion valid for the LAD list, since we all are
concerned about licensing our software and the use other people make
of it.

Luis
_______________________________________________
Linux-audio-dev mailing list
Linux-audio-dev@email-addr-hidden
http://lists.linuxaudio.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-audio-dev
Received on Sun Jan 27 16:15:20 2008