[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".


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.


More information about the Linux-audio-dev mailing list