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

On Sunday 26 July 2009 03:14:25 Sampo Savolainen wrote:
> On Sun, 2009-07-26 at 01:20 +0200, Arnold Krille wrote:
> > Hi,
> >...
> > 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.

Whether you use another GPL library as code, directly compiled in, or linked
to externally makes no difference under the GPL. This is just another case
of where people have not gone to the FSF and read the FAQ page on GPL.

> > And as the software is GPL licensed, the source _has_ to be made
> > available at least on request by ways equally convinient as the binaries
> > (afaik this ruling in the gpl-text wants to prevent that requests for the
> > source-code have to be written on 200$ notes or that the >1million lines
> > of code are sent via fax or snail-mail).
>
> There is no statement about GPL on the Impro-visor site nor could I find
> such a statement in the archive.org copies of previous pages.

This is true. Not a violation in itself, but it does obscure the situation.
Most projects that use GPL usually make it well-known. You don't
have to, but given the previous actions of these folks it does not
exactly look like they are trying to be above board on the matter.

> Wikipedia states it's GPL as does
> http://www.softsynth.com/links/java_music.html
> but .. has the copyright holder(s) ever declared it as GPL?

It does not make any difference whether the copyright holder of
Impro-Visor declares it as GPL or not. Once you use GPL code in
your application it too must be GPL. That is the viral nature of GPL.
Again, FSF and the FAQ on GPL. Read it.

> Furthermore, as I said in my previous post: the copyright holders are free
> to stop using GPL. You may fork if you receive GPL licensed source from the
> authors or from a previous licensee (someone who made a copy while it
> was under GPL with the licenses intact etc.). You however may not fork
> it based on a disassembled code not released under GPL.

Sure, but again not relevant to the current situation. Can we stick to
the topic, please.

>
>
> Maybe I've missed something crucial in this discussion, so I'll ask the
> stupid question (directed towards Raymond):
>
> Was the impro-visor version 3.99 released under GPL?
>
> .. or
>
> Are you assuming the whole of Impro-visor is subject to GPL as it has
> violated the GPL of jmusic?
>

Both.

A few days ago I put up a GPL header direct from one of the java files
in Impro-Visor to make it clear that I was certain they were violating
the GPL.

Impro-Visor compiles in the jMusic code, which makes it even more
evident that there is a violation. And the header clearly mentions
using jMusic. So there is no mystery in whether this under GPL
or that violations have occurred.

Raymond

_______________________________________________
Linux-audio-dev mailing list
Linux-audio-dev@email-addr-hidden
http://lists.linuxaudio.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-audio-dev
Received on Sun Jul 26 20:15:01 2009