[linux-audio-user] Re: distorting Linuxsampler

[Rui Nuno Capela]

Fernando Lopez-Lezcano wrote:
> On Fri, 2006-04-21 at 01:14 +0100, Rui Nuno Capela wrote:
>> People, please calm down.
>>
>> I gotta repeat my own understanding of this issue, but I think it all
>> boils down to this:
>>
>> a) linuxsampler-0.3.3 is the last known public release; as is, its pure
>> GPL, everyone if free to fork it according to FSF legalese ;)
> 
> This is not the first time I see something like this posted on the
> lists, sigh:
> 
> --------
>> tar
> xvjf /projects/planet/source/rpms/linuxsampler/linuxsampler-0.3.3.tar.bz2
>> cd linuxsampler-0.3.3
>> more README
>   LinuxSampler - modular, streaming capable sampler
>   
>   by Benno Senoner (benno at gardena.net)
>   and Christian Schoenebeck (cuse at users.sourceforge.net)
>   
>   This software is distributed under the GNU General Public License (see
>   COPYING file), and may not be used in commercial applications
>   without asking the authors for permission.
> --------
> 
> so, AFAIK 0.3.3 is already not really GPL for the reasons already listed
> in the thread. 
> 
> Maybe I have the wrong tarball? (BTW, try to download 0.3.3 - let me
> know how you manage to do that). If you go to the CVS site and browse
> the 0.3.3 release branch you get the same thing in the README. 
> 
>> b) linuxsampler CVS HEAD (IOW, all source code in CVS since 0.3.3
>> release) is the one which The-Rather-Illegal-GPL-Exception applies;
>> thats actually intentional; if you're a distro packager, do NOT pick it!
>> being you debianese or not :) unless you get the explicit LS-devel
>> permission to do it, of course, as stated on the infamous exception.
>>
>> Is that clear?
> 
> Not really, I keep seeing the above referenced README in 0.3.3. So,
> unless I'm missing something, please stop saying that this is only
> happening in CVS. 
> 

Now you tell me :)

OK. I've done some homework now :) In fact, that infamous README 
paragraph has been literally just like that since LS dawn (somewhere 
around fall 2003). I'll repeat it here:

Old Linuxsampler README License, until 0.3.3 inclusive:
...
   This software is distributed under the GNU General Public License
   (see COPYING file), and may not be used in commercial applications
   without asking the authors for permission.
...


That was is in fact loose and naive. But IANAL.

Then, almost after the 0.3.3 release, someone relative to debian and 
GPL-purism raised the question, leading to all this fuss, and that 
paragrah was promptly changed to the EXCEPTIONal one, as is today in 
CVS. It is no better, I believe, but it makes a stronger position.

Current Linuxsampler README License, as is on CVS HEAD today:
...
   License
   -------

   The LinuxSampler library (liblinuxsampler) and its applications are
   distributed under the terms of the GNU General Public License (see
   COPYING file), but with the EXCEPTION that they may NOT be used in
   COMMERCIAL software or hardware products without prior written
   authorization by the authors.
...


I'll give you my apologies, as my prior allegations have no defense at 
the face of the letter. Anyway, the understanding I've wrote is the one 
to stick with, as I believe is the same as the LS developers' 
disposition, me included:)

Bye now.
-- 
rncbc aka Rui Nuno Capela
rncbc at rncbc.org