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

Lars Luthman lars.luthman at gmail.com
Sat Jul 1 23:44:39 UTC 2006

On Sun, 2006-07-02 at 00:43 +0200, Fons Adriaensen wrote:
> On Sat, Jul 01, 2006 at 04:09:42PM -0400, Dave Robillard wrote:
> > 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.
> If the source is available for everyone to read, then it is open
> according to the normal meaning of those words in English. What is
> misleading is to attach any other meaning to them. It's a typical
> marketeer's trick to redefine words or concepts that have a clear
> an established meaning, and IMHO that's a disgusting practice.

Come on, I think an overwhelming majority of the readers of this list
interprets "open source" or "free software" as "software for which I can
get the source and modify and redistribute (including for commercial
purposes)" instead of "software for which I can read the source" or
"software for which I don't have to pay anything". People use old words
and phrases to mean new things all the time, mostly because describing
the new thing exactly would be too long and making up a completely new
word would just sound silly.

> Besides that, DR is broadcasting plain lies. There is nothing in
> the Linuxsampler licence nor in that infamouse README that should
> impede you using it for an album or concert you sell commercially.

A notice on the "Download" webpage on http://www.linuxsampler.org 

LinuxSampler is licensed under the GNU GPL license with the exception
COMMERCIAL USE of the source code, libraries and applications is
NOT ALLOWED without prior written permission by the LinuxSampler

I would definitely say that using linuxsampler to produce an album that
you are selling or to perform a live concert to which you sell tickets
falls under "commercial use of the application". That is probably not
what the authors meant, but it's the natural way to interpret it.

Lars Luthman - please encrypt any email sent to me if possible
PGP key: http://pgp.mit.edu:11371/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0x04C77E2E
Fingerprint: FCA7 C790 19B9 322D EB7A E1B3 4371 4650 04C7 7E2E
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 191 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
URL: <http://lists.linuxaudio.org/pipermail/linux-audio-dev/attachments/20060702/da0d3fea/attachment.pgp>

More information about the Linux-audio-dev mailing list