On Sat, 2005-12-10 at 20:49 +0000, Pete Leigh wrote:
> On 10/12/05, James Stone <jmstone@email-addr-hidden> wrote:
> > On Thu, 08 Dec 2005 08:33:58 +0000, Pete Leigh wrote:
>
> > > Still, without explaining any more, would it be an idea for the authors to
> > > indicate what their likely response would be under some easily imaginable
> > > scenarios, like: "I'm about to release a commercial album where linux
> > > sampler was used in production. May I?"
>
> > >From my understanding, it is the commercial exploitation of the software,
> > rather than the sale of music written with the software that they are
> > trying to limit: so if you were to build a linux based synth, and sell it
> > with LS installed, they would like to get some money from you for it,
> > which they would not be able to do under the GPL.
>
> Hi James,
>
> I hope (and am quite prepared to believe) you're right. Just that it
> doesn't specifically say that - it just says "commercial use [...] is
> not allowed", which is a little vague. That's why I'm suggesting a
> clarification for those unwilling to make assumptions might be
> a good idea :-)
>
Rather than speculate any further someone really should ask them. If
they mean "commercial distribution of the software" they need to say
that rather than "commercial use" which I suspect is too vague to have
an unambiguous legal definition.
Lee
Received on Sun Dec 11 00:15:08 2005
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Sun Dec 11 2005 - 00:15:08 EET