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

Dave Robillard drobilla at connect.carleton.ca
Sat Jul 1 20:09:42 UTC 2006


On Sat, 2006-07-01 at 20:56 +0100, Rui Nuno Capela wrote:
> 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.
> > 
> 
> When did it happen that when some software project is not GPL is not
> open-source? E.g. apache is not GPL, so it must not be open-source?

Noone said that.

> Problem with linuxsampler license void its all about that infamous
> exception clause on the README file, "that it may NOT be used in
> COMMERCIAL software or hardware products without prior written
> authorization by the authors."
> 
> Beside the simple fact that it voids the GPL, it certainly doesn't make
> it closed-source

Actually yes it does, by the "official" open source definition (which is
clearly what people refer to when they use the term "open source".

http://www.opensource.org/docs/definition.php

Whether or not you agree with the licensing practise, calling it "open
source" is as misleading as calling MS shared source "open source".
Defend the license/exception if you want, but don't intentionally
mislead people about the licensing terms.

-DR-





More information about the Linux-audio-dev mailing list