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

Rui Nuno Capela rncbc at
Wed Jul 5 08:17:33 UTC 2006

On Tue, July 4, 2006 18:49, Dave Robillard wrote:
> On Tue, 2006-07-04 at 09:32 +0100, Rui Nuno Capela wrote:
>> 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 think you're missing the point.  Current CVS LS *IS* effectively
> GPLed.

Reading straight from almost every LS source file headers, I guess you're
right. GPL is the fundamental licensing terms of LS, and I think it will
remain that way. My concern was only related to the LS core developers
position regarding the issue Paul mentioned.

Even tought I'm in the LS developer list, my main contribution took the
form of Qsampler and liblscp, which are GPL and LGPL respectively. I must
tell that I have little or almost no privileged information about the
issue with the so-called "company". In fact, personally speaking of
course, I don't give a damn, because all my work has been given just for
fun. However ethically, I must give all the respect to every one of you
and all others that have put something palatable of their lives at stake.

Because they care.

rncbc aka Rui Nuno Capela
rncbc at

More information about the Linux-audio-dev mailing list