[linux-audio-user] Re: Linux Sampler

[Mark Knecht]

On 12/10/05, Lee Revell <rlrevell at joe-job.com> wrote:
> On Sat, 2005-12-10 at 20:49 +0000, Pete Leigh wrote:
> > On 10/12/05, James Stone <jmstone at dsl.pipex.com> wrote:
> > > On Thu, 08 Dec 2005 08:33:58 +0000, Pete Leigh wrote:
> >
> > > > Still, without explaining any more, would it be an idea for the authors to
> > > > indicate what their likely response would be under some easily imaginable
> > > > scenarios, like: "I'm about to release a commercial album where linux
> > > > sampler was used in production. May I?"
> >
> > > >From my understanding, it is the commercial exploitation of the software,
> > > rather than the sale of music written with the software that they are
> > > trying to limit: so if you were to build a linux based synth, and sell it
> > > with LS installed, they would like to get some money from you for it,
> > > which they would not be able to do under the GPL.
> >
> > Hi James,
> >
> > I hope (and am quite prepared to believe) you're right. Just that it
> > doesn't specifically say that - it just says "commercial use [...] is
> > not allowed", which is a little vague. That's why I'm suggesting a
> > clarification for those unwilling to make assumptions might be
> > a good idea :-)
> >
>
> Rather than speculate any further someone really should ask them.  If
> they mean "commercial distribution of the software" they need to say
> that rather than "commercial use" which I suspect is too vague to have
> an unambiguous legal definition.
>
> Lee
>
>
Lee & others,
   I may be wrong but I believe that the answers to this are in the
archives if someone wanted to go through them and find it.

   The proble with asking is that while the answer may be true today
it may not be true in the future.

- Mark