Got to step in here for a moment. Users ARE allowed to sell their music, and in fact are encouraged to do so, in clear print on the website.<br><br>Quote:<br>"Can I use LinuxSampler for commercial music production?
<p class="default">
Hell, yes! Every indirect commercial usage of LinuxSampler, which essentially means
using its audio output, can of course be used in commercial applications like music
productions, live shows, etc. Don't get us wrong, with the mentioned commercial
exception we don't want to restrict the normal user / musician, we just want to avoid
somebody to directly make money with our work, that is by selling our software in a
sampler product like a sampler + sample library bundle, a hardware sampler or
something equivalent, at least not without giving something back to the open source
Community."</p><p class="default">Unquote<br></p>Seems as plain as day to me.<br>Alex Stone.<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">2008/1/24 Arnold Krille <<a href="mailto:arnold@arnoldarts.de">arnold@arnoldarts.de</a>
>:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">Am Donnerstag, 24. Januar 2008 schrieb Paul Davis:<br><div class="Ih2E3d">> On Thu, 2008-01-24 at 14:39 +0100, Arnold Krille wrote:
<br>> > Yes, there is a very valid reason for you not to do so: Adding something<br>> > to the gpl _and_ still calling it the gpl is not valid.<br>> Wrong.<br>> "This software is licensed under the terms of the Foobar License version
<br>> 1.2.8 except that sections 9 through 10 of that license do not apply".<br>> Note the phrase "This software is licensed". These are followed by a<br>> description of the license terms. Let me provide a more extreme example:
<br><br></div>Okay, I stand corrected (once again on the copyrights-field).<br>(Applies also to the mail from Christian.)<br><div class="Ih2E3d"><br>> I agree that the license is not well worded (it causes problems for
<br>> Linux distributions, for example, in ways that I think are totally<br>> unintended). That doesn't make it an invalid license.<br><br></div>So the license is valid but the wording is unclear because distributions don't
<br>know wether they are allowed to ship it and users don't know wether they are<br>allowed to sell the music they do with LS?<br><div><div></div><div class="Wj3C7c"><br>Arnold<br>--<br>visit <a href="http://www.arnoldarts.de/" target="_blank">
http://www.arnoldarts.de/</a><br>---<br>Hi, I am a .signature virus. Please copy me into your ~/.signature and send me<br>to all your contacts.<br>After a month or so log in as root and do a "rm -rf /". Or ask your
<br>administrator to do so...<br></div></div><br>_______________________________________________<br>Linux-audio-dev mailing list<br><a href="mailto:Linux-audio-dev@lists.linuxaudio.org">Linux-audio-dev@lists.linuxaudio.org
</a><br><a href="http://lists.linuxaudio.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-audio-dev" target="_blank">http://lists.linuxaudio.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-audio-dev</a><br><br></blockquote></div><br>