Re: [LAD] Impro-Visor packages now on SF

Hi,

On Sunday 26 July 2009 09:14:25 Sampo Savolainen wrote:
> On Sun, 2009-07-26 at 01:20 +0200, Arnold Krille wrote:
> > On Sunday 26 July 2009 00:14:45 Sampo Savolainen wrote:
> > > The idea behind GPL is that if someone else modifies the code and
> > > redistributes this work, he must provide the code (under the same
> > > license) for anyone receiving the software. That is the point of the
> > > license.
> > The main point I remembered from the last thread with "Impro-Visor" in
> > the title: It uses gpl software itself. Which means that it has to
> > publish the modifications of that part at least.
> True, if they have done any modifications to that "external" part. If
> it's only using it (jmusic?) as a library, the license of the library
> shouldn't affect the main software. But this has always been a hot topic
> with GPL: how to link dynamic / static and how does linking affect the
> license of the linkee.
<snip>
> Are you assuming the whole of Impro-visor is subject to GPL as it has
> violated the GPL of jmusic?

There is a nice page on the fsf website explaining the differences between gpl
and lgpl for libraries. The basic essence (as far as I understand it) is: If
you want all apps using your lib to be gpl (or free) use gpl for your lib. If
you want more spread against competitors and thus allow closed-source
development using your lib, use lgpl.

So the fact that Improvisor uses (and ships!) the gpl-ed jmusic, this makes
improvisor gpl. Not providing the source for improvisor (not even upon
request) is a violation of the gpl. Everyone has the right to complain about
that, the jmusic guys even have the right to sue against this.

Have fun,

Arnold

_______________________________________________
Linux-audio-dev mailing list
Linux-audio-dev@email-addr-hidden
http://lists.linuxaudio.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-audio-dev