LinuxSampler license, was Re: [linux-audio-dev] fst, VST 2.0, kontakt

Rui Nuno Capela rncbc at
Tue Jul 4 08:32:00 UTC 2006

On Mon, July 3, 2006 22:55, Dave Robillard wrote:
> On Mon, 2006-07-03 at 08:33 -0400, Paul Davis wrote:
>> On Mon, 2006-07-03 at 02:26 +0700, Patrick Shirkey wrote:
>>> If they really want to get people to give money then they should just
>>>  make it so that you have to pay or contribute code/time for a while
>>> to get access to the newest downloads from their site. Keep the stable
>>>  version far enough behind the development version that people will
>>> pay to get the newest code base.
>> its really rather amusing to see people speculating on what the
>> developers of LS could or could not do, when the actual relevant
>> "encounter" with "commercial interests" has *already* happened. it did
>> not go well. it can be tempting to imagine that we understand the
>> motivations of commercial organizations and can therefore offer them
>> appropriate carrots. don't be so confident of this. both the LS
>> developers and myself are under the terms of an NDA, so it is not
>> possible to discuss with any relevant detail precisely what happened.
>> but it was nasty, it was unpleasant and as i've said before, it would
>> be better for people to not make so many assumptions about their ability
>> to guess at what might or might happen when a commercial company shows
>> interest in a tool like LS.
> Everyone can make assumptions about what they can or can't do until the
> cows come home, but it's irrelevant.  The point it the license needs
> clarification.
> The disclaimer in the README is along the lines of what they intend to
> say (judging by the previously pasted quotes).  The disclaimer on the
> webpage clearly makes it illegal to use LS on a CD you intend to sell, or
> in public concerts you sell tickets to (a goal that is specifically
> mentioned on the About page I might add), so if that isn't the intention
> it should be fixed.  There is no disclaimer on the source files at all, so
> those are pure GPL with no commercial restrictions whatsoever.
> What IS the license to LinuxSampler?  Who knows.  They certainly havn't
> told us.

We already know that the LS license is currently flawed. As Christian
wrote explicitly, even thought the README file still has the infamous
exception wording, *ALL* public releases of LinuxSampler until and
including 0.3.3 *ARE* plain GPL. That last public release was more than
one year ago. Since then, LinuxSampler code in CVS has changed in many
pervasive ways, and AFAICT for the better, performance and feature-wise.

I strongly believe (although I'm also speculating here;) the next public
release of LinuxSampler, whenever it will be ready, will come with a
proper open-source license. And I pretty guess it will be pure GPL but I
just cannot garantee that yet ;)

Now, regarding the so-called unclear license of LinuxSampler, why don't
you people just read the FAQ (,
having special attention to the very first two questions? and rest relaxed
at least for a while... :)

rncbc aka Rui Nuno Capela
rncbc at

More information about the Linux-audio-dev mailing list