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

Lars Luthman lars.luthman at gmail.com
Fri Dec 15 13:22:37 EST 2006

On Fri, 2006-12-15 at 11:07 -0700, Garett Shulman wrote:
> Lars Luthman wrote:
> > On Fri, 2006-12-15 at 17:40 +0000, James Stone wrote:
> >   
> >>> 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 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'm not so sure that it is open source as it stands now. Paragraph 7 of
> > the GPL says:
> >
> > "If, as a consequence of a court judgment or allegation of patent
> > infringement or for any other reason (not limited to patent issues),
> > conditions are imposed on you (whether by court order, agreement or
> > otherwise) that contradict the conditions of this License, they do not
> > excuse you from the conditions of this License. If you cannot distribute
> > so as to satisfy simultaneously your obligations under this License and
> > any other pertinent obligations, then as a consequence you may not
> > distribute the Program at all."
> >
> > So if you are not allowed to distribute LinuxSampler for commercial
> > purposes you are not allowed to distribute it at all. I'm sure this is
> > not what the LinuxSampler people intend, but as the license stands now
> > it is inconsistent and, according to paragraph 7 of the GPL, invalid -
> > which means that normal copyright law applies, without any extra
> > freedoms at all.
> >
> > But you are right that this has been discussed to death several times
> > already, and if the LinuxSampler authors haven't fixed the license by
> > now they are probably not going to do it in the forseeable future
> > either. I withdraw from the discussion.
> >
> >   
> Well... If LS links to GPL code that it's authors do not own the 
> copyright to than this is true. However, as a copyright owner of code 
> that does not link to any GPL code you are free to release software 
> under absolutely whatever license you choose... including 'almost 
> exactly GPL but with x, y, & z differences'. Trolltech licesenses their 
> code under two different licenses, GPL, & a non-GPL license. But because 
> they own the copyright to their code this is not a problem.

I don't mean that they are violating any license themselves, they are of
course allowed to do whatever they want with the code that they wrote. I
mean that the current license (GPL + inconsistent add-on) can be
interpreted as saying that no one is allowed to distribute LinuxSampler
at all except the people that already have that right without any
licensing (the authors).

Lars Luthman - please encrypt any email sent to me if possible
PGP key: http://pgp.mit.edu:11371/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0x04C77E2E
Fingerprint: FCA7 C790 19B9 322D EB7A E1B3 4371 4650 04C7 7E2E
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
Url : http://lists.linuxaudio.org/pipermail/linux-audio-user/attachments/20061215/25d6dc4d/attachment.pgp 

More information about the Linux-audio-user mailing list