[Linuxsampler-devel] [linux-audio-user] nice piano

James Stone jamesmstone at gmail.com
Fri Dec 15 12:40:11 EST 2006

On Fri, Dec 15, 2006 at 12:22:26PM -0500, Ross Vandegrift wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 15, 2006 at 07:45:55AM +0000, James Stone wrote:
> > LS will work with proper 32 bit samples now. It used to read 32
> > bit but play them back at 16 bit. The new license that Mark
> > refers to is a modification of the GPL fobidding the use of the
> > code in commercial hardware or software projects without the
> > consent of the authors. This is what they say on the FAQ:
> I hate to be a jerk and crap on someone's project, but this is a
> clear violation of the GPL.  Here's some GPL FAQs that explain this:
> https://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/gpl-faq.html#DoesTheGPLAllowMoney
> https://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/gpl-faq.html#TOCDoesTheGPLAllowNDA
> https://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/gpl-faq.html#TOCOrigBSD
> Software freedom zero requires that a program be usable for any
> purpose whatsoever with no restrictions or limitations.  Of course if
> I produce a hardware device that uses a modified LinuxSampler, my
> modifications are required to be free software.

I know.. They released it as non-free software (as in speech) and
non-GPL. Their license is exactly the same as the GPL except for
their non-commercial use clause, which, as you say makes it
non-compatible with the GPL. 

I think some of the libraries that LS uses are GPL but I have not
checked recently, and before you start complaining, they were all
written by the same authors as released LS so it is up to them if
they want to abide by their own license terms or not.. Therefore
(AFAIK) LS does not _have_ to be GPL.

I agree it is a shame LS is not Free Software, but it is free as
in beer, and open source, and is a really nice piece of
programming. I can understand why they want to see some return if
someone uses their code.. and I don't think they see releasing
modification of source code as sufficient recompense for
commercial uses of their code. I guess if you were to donate
masses of cash, they might reconsider their decision.

Anyway, this argument has been done to death on the LS list, so
there is little point repeating it here. I think the authors are
fairly clear about the terms they want in their license.


More information about the Linux-audio-user mailing list