[LAD] [OT] LinuxSampler and GPL - some clarifications

[Marek]

On Jan 30, 2008 6:18 PM, Dave Robillard <dave at drobilla.net> wrote:
> On Wed, 2008-01-30 at 17:55 +0100, Marek wrote:
> > On Jan 29, 2008 7:01 AM, Dave Robillard <dave at drobilla.net> wrote:
> > > On Mon, 2008-01-28 at 15:16 +0100, Marek wrote:
> > >
> > > > On Jan 28, 2008 11:37 AM, Dennis Schulmeister
> > > > <linux-audio-dev at windows3.de> wrote:
> > > > > > The GPL doesn't *address* compensation for distribution at all.
> > > > >
> > > > > I understand your point of a missing compensation mechanism very well.
> > > > > And surely open-source developers would be thankful if they could get
> > > > > something back in return. Be it code or even money so they can make a
> > > > > living. But although compensation is in no way enforced or even assured
> > > > > it's already happening. On a voluntary basis.
> > > > >
> > > > > The problem I see is the very moment you add a compensation mechanism to
> > > > > the terms of the GPL (or any similar license terms) y
> > > >
> > > > No. GPL doesn't include any compensation mechanism at all. It
> > > > implicitly prohibits from using the program licensed under the terms
> > > > of GPLfor any commercial purpose other than charging for distribution.
> > >
> > > This is utterly false, and completely contrary to the entire purpose of
> > > Free Software, and the GPL.
> >
> > Ok. How does the interpretation i have given rob you of the freedom to
> > run the code, study it, modify, distribute or make ascii art paintings
> > out of it or whatever like that?
>
> I never said it does.  I said that the GPL says no such thing.

Not expicitly. Which is why a lawyer usually has a set of methods and
tools in order to interpret a license if certain questions arise that
aren't explicitly covered.
I've chosen extensive intepretation of the GPLv2.

> What
> your clearly false interpretation may or may not imply is irrelevant.
>
> Can you find /any/ reference whatsoever to someone reasonably claiming
> that the GPL prohibits commercial use?

No. What you are saying is irrelevant. It doesn't matter if there's is
any opinion that claims you can, or any opinion claiming
otherwise(both offering a comprehensive explanation). Except court
judgements in some  countries(common law).

Clearly false interpretation - please show me(not the one you have
given me, i need facts, quoting GPL, puting my interpretation in
question etc).


> You can certainly find tens of
> thousands of references to the fact that it does not, and it is simply
> a /fact/ that the license was created explicitly to not prevent any use.

Give me 3. (should be easy)

>
> While the intentions may not define the license, that several lawyers
> have gone over it, literally down to the meaning of each individual
> word, and affirm that it does adhere to it's "spirit" is slightly more
> compelling evidence than some quack on l-a-d with a penchant for
> annoying people.

I need evidence that you know what you are talking about.

Marek