Hi,
I think I have a version here that is very close to the last GPL
version. (The machine is in the bedroom and my wife is asleep. I'll
check later.) I am sure that we can get an old version from CVS that
represents the design just prior to the license change assuming no one
has mucked with the state of the repository.
QUESTION: If the current LS is based on a version that was, at one
time, Open Source, doesn't GPL provide that the Open Source version
must be made available to those that want it?
If some set of developers are interested in carrying on
development, with an up front agreement to keep the results Open
Source, then you can count on me to do continued testing of LS2 and
comparison with GigaStudio.
With best regards,
Mark
On 12/11/05, Juhana Sadeharju <kouhia@email-addr-hidden> wrote:
>
> Hello.
> Could anyone extract the last pure GPL version of Linuxsampler
> out of CVS? Perhaps one of the LS developers could do that
> (as they know the versions)?
>
> Do the same with libgig etc. if they have experienced similar
> change.
>
> One should also collect the bug reports of LS and the mailing list
> archives after the license change.
>
> I have blamed LS developers for not making the development
> documentation available via their public webpage. Now it
> hits hard as the developers of alternative version need to
> reverse engineer Gigasampler all over again for the missing
> parts.
>
> If LS developers could make all dev documents up to today
> available for the alternative developers, would that be nice.
> The dev docs would help them to catch up the LS as soon
> as possible.
>
> Do you see any problem in this kind of arrangement? I don't.
> (But if LS eventually becomes pure-GPL, all this trouble is
> not necessary.)
>
> Juhana
> --
> http://music.columbia.edu/mailman/listinfo/linux-graphics-dev
> for developers of open source graphics software
>
Received on Sun Dec 11 20:15:06 2005
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Sun Dec 11 2005 - 20:15:06 EET