[linux-audio-dev] fst, VST 2.0, kontakt

[Dave Robillard]

On Sun, 2006-07-02 at 00:41 +0700, Patrick Shirkey wrote:
> Lars Luthman wrote:
> > On Sat, 2006-07-01 at 23:53 +0700, Patrick Shirkey wrote:
> >> Dave Robillard wrote:
> >>> On Sat, 2006-07-01 at 17:43 +0200, Luis Garrido wrote:
> >>>>> LinuxSampler is not free software or open source software.
> >>>>>
> >>>> (sigh, must we, really?)
> >>>>
> >>>> It depends on who you choose to side with.
> >>> Forget "free software" then, I don't mean to start any debate, and
> >>> there's no "sides" here.  Just that people are talking about writing
> >>> open source alternatives to things (Kontakt) and referring to
> >>> LinuxSampler as the project to do so, so it should be pointed out so
> >>> people aren't misled.
> >>>
> >>> LinuxSampler is not open source.
> >>>
> >> It's veeeery close though.
> >>
> >> It's just using a modified GPL License which isn't clearly labelled as 
> >> such. IANAL but that makes LinuxSampler illegally licensed if someone 
> >> wanted to make a fuss about it. They call it GPL version 2 or 3 but it 
> >> has been modified so that nullifies it AFAIK. If they don't fix it and 
> >> someone does use their software to make a financial gain then it could 
> >> very easily be argued that the software is licensed as GPL 2 or 3 and 
> >> that makes it 100% open source.
> > 
> > I don't think so. If the GPL is combined with some other license
> > agreement or restriction that is not compatible with the GPL, it
> > automatically cancels itself (see paragraph 7,
> > http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl.txt ) and normal copyright law applies.
> > Which in most countries means that only the actual copyright owner (if
> > there is a single one) is allowed to distribute it. 
> > 
> 
> So then it is definitely not open source due to the current license.
> 
> I hope they fix it soon.

Indeed.  A sampler you can't even use on an album you intend to sell or
in a performance you sell tickets to isn't exactly the most useful thing
in the world.

-DR-