[LAU] Is LS licensed? (was: [LAA] [ANN] gigedit 0.1.0)

[Paul Davis]

On Wed, 2007-10-17 at 21:07 +0200, Arnold Krille wrote:
> Am Mittwoch, 17. Oktober 2007 schrieb Keith Sharp:
> > 2) The inclusion of the additional restriction means that LinuxSampler
> > cannot be distributed under a licence that is called the GPL.  The GPL
> > FAQ[2] is quite clear on this.  Additionally the FAQ states that
> > software distributed under the GPL + restrictions cannot be linked to
> > libraries under the GPL because the new licence (GPL + restrictions) is
> > almost certainly incompatible with the GPL.
> 
> Which means the linuxsampler guys can't link to their own libgig! Someone 
> should tell them about their problems.

if i write library foo and app bar, i can do whatever the hell i want
with them, no matter how i license them to you. the GPL is a license
issued by copyright holders to others to allow them to make copies under
certain conditions. it is not a self-imposed restriction by copyright
holders on their own inherent rights to do whatever they want with their
work.

since christian is one of the authors of LS and the author or one of the
authors of gigedit, i suspect that your observation doesn't matter much,
but that would depend on the details of the copyright holding
arrangement.