[linux-audio-user] Re: Re: Linux Sampler

[James Stone]

On Sat, 10 Dec 2005 20:49:34 +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
> :-)
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> - Pete.

Here is an excerpt from an email on 5th September title Re:
[Linuxsampler-devel] GPL tainting and [linuxsampler license] from LS
project leader, and author of libgig (Christian Shoenebeck) posted to the
LS-Dev email list

<quote>
The idea about such a possible new license was to allow "direct" commercial
usage of LS only if the commercial actor supported this or another
(important) open source project either directly by contributing code or
indirectly by funding the respective project. So somebody who supported e.g.
the GCC, ALSA or Jack Audio Connection Kit project might also be allowed to
use LS commercially. "Commercial usage" would of course only mean products
based on LS, it would of course not mean using LS e.g. for commercial music
production or something. Such a license wouldn't mean anything negative for
the user, but might "motivate" or force ;) more people to contribute to this
or another open source project, so personally I would find such a license
more beneficial (than GPL for example) for the open source community in
general.
</quote>

James