On Wed, Dec 29, 2010 at 09:31:03PM +0000, Andrew C wrote:
> Last time I checked, LS is Open Source, but just not completely GPL.
> Which isn't really much of an issue unless you want to sell embedded
> hardware that runs LS of course.
The problem with LinuxSampler license has been discused many times, it
is a bit more complex that that. The problem is that adding an
additional restriction to the GPL makes the license self contradictory
and the software becomes "undistributable" (that's why Debian removed it
also from its non-free repository). It is explained in the official GPL
FAQ:
Q: I'd like to license my code under the GPL, but I'd also like to
make it clear that it can't be used for military and/or commercial
uses. Can I do this?
A: No, because those two goals contradict each other. The GNU GPL
is designed specifically to prevent the addition of further
restrictions [...]
They should have chosen a proprietary license, free for no commercial,
to achive what they want while avoidind the GPL in their code. Of course
many people (me included) would prefer it to be pure GPL, but a
proprietary license would be much better that the current situation.
_______________________________________________
Linux-audio-user mailing list
Linux-audio-user@email-addr-hidden
http://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-user
Received on Thu Dec 30 04:15:02 2010
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Thu Dec 30 2010 - 04:15:02 EET