Re: [linux-audio-user] Re: distorting Linuxsampler

Gene Heskett wrote:
> On Thursday 20 April 2006 11:03, Dave Phillips wrote:
>> Frank Barknecht wrote:
>>> According to their words: "COMMERCIAL USE of the souce code,
>>> libraries and applications is NOT ALLOWED without prior written
>>> permission by the LinuxSampler authors" no professional musician is
>>> allowed to use LinuxSampler except with a written permission.
>> Frank, where did you get this text ? It's not the text I quoted from
>> the LS README :
>>
>> "The LinuxSampler library (liblinuxsampler) and its applications are
>> distributed under the terms of the GNU General Public License (see
>> COPYING file), but with the EXCEPTION that they may NOT be used in
>> COMMERCIAL software or hardware products without prior written
>> authorization by the authors."
>
> Its my understanding of the GPL that you CANNOT apply additional
> restrictions and still call it "GPL".
>
> I'd suggest they consult with an attorney before they write such
> foolery.
>
>> This is from recent CVS sources.
>>
>> Best,
>>
>> dp
>

People, please calm down.

I gotta repeat my own understanding of this issue, but I think it all
boils down to this:

a) linuxsampler-0.3.3 is the last known public release; as is, its pure
GPL, everyone if free to fork it according to FSF legalese ;)

b) linuxsampler CVS HEAD (IOW, all source code in CVS since 0.3.3
release) is the one which The-Rather-Illegal-GPL-Exception applies;
thats actually intentional; if you're a distro packager, do NOT pick it!
being you debianese or not :) unless you get the explicit LS-devel
permission to do it, of course, as stated on the infamous exception.

Is that clear?

I'm sure that, when LS gets mature enough for next release, a new and
lean open-source license will come to light.

Cheers.

-- 
rncbc aka Rui Nuno Capela
rncbc@email-addr-hidden