On Thu, Dec 30, 2010 at 6:48 AM, drew Roberts <zotz@email-addr-hidden> wrote:
> On Wednesday 29 December 2010 16:31:03 Andrew C wrote:
>> Last time I checked, LS is Open Source,
>
> Are you saying it meets this:
>
> http://www.opensource.org/osd.html
>
> Do you think it also meets this:
>
> http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html
>
> all the best,
>
> drew
IMO it meets neither in that redistribution is limited by the changes
in the license which made it non-GPL.
The 'source' is 'open' in the sense that we can get copies, look at
the code & modify it and use it. Unfortunately we are restricted
(granted, restricted in ways that likely don't matter much to
individual musicians) in our _use_ of the code via redistribution into
commercial platforms.
- Mark
_______________________________________________
Linux-audio-user mailing list
Linux-audio-user@email-addr-hidden
http://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-user
Received on Thu Dec 30 20:15:07 2010
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Thu Dec 30 2010 - 20:15:07 EET