[LAU] Pre-License change LinuxSampler code

[drew Roberts]

On Thursday 01 May 2008 21:29:22 Mark Knecht wrote:
> On Thu, May 1, 2008 at 6:01 PM, Dave Phillips <dlphillips at woh.rr.com> wrote:
> > bradley newton haug wrote:
> >  > attempting to subvert the intentions of the authors (who are present
> >  > on this list) is deplorable.
> >
> >  He isn't subverting anything. Open source code licensed under the GPL
> >  guarantees Mark's (and your) freedom to work with the code as either of
> >  you see fit.
> >
> >  The GPL does not address the intentions of the authors. Specifically it
> >  address the rights of users, of which Mark is one. He is entitled to do
> >  what he likes with the source code, so long as he abides by the letter
> >  of its license, as are we all.
> >
> >  You know, for all the bullcrap that's been spewed on this matter, has
> >  anyone ever submitted the case to the FSF for their judgment on it ? It
> >  seems to me that their opinion would seal the issue once and for all.
> >
> >  Best,
> >
> >  dp
>
> Thanks Dave. I applaud everyone for their comments on this subject.
> Personally I feel that using GPL code for any reason allowed within
> GPL is certainly not a deplorable action. We do it every day with lots
> of GPL programs. At the time this package of code was written it is my
> understanding that this was a GPL project. That what the license seems
> to say and that's all I work on.
>
> I am still the only non-developer I know of who is specifically listed
> on the LS site as a contributor. Over the years I've certainly been
> one of the 'spew-iees' Dave is speaking of, fairly enough, because I
> put in huge amounts of efforts on the project only to have the rug
> pulled out from underneath me with no discussion. The GPL doesn't
> protect my 'interests' as a tester/contributor bucause my name isn't
> listed in the code header. In fact the license was changed and I
> continued working on the project because the developers didn't even
> announce they'd made the change.
>
> I'm not personally sure what the FSF could really do for us on this
> subject but I'd be interested in knowing. Whatever the reasons were
> that the authors changed the license they have refused to talk about
> them in public. I don't think that taking the code non-GPL is really
> 'wrong', per se, but possibly the FSF would tell them they have to use
> a non-GPL license that they write instead of stealing the GPL and
> modifying it? (Heck, I think the idea of the GPL itself was that you
> don't change it, right? If anyone can change it then the idea of
> feeding code back into the program falls apart/)

"GNU GENERAL PUBLIC LICENSE
		       Version 2, June 1991

 Copyright (C) 1989, 1991 Free Software Foundation, Inc.,
 51 Franklin Street, Fifth Floor, Boston, MA 02110-1301 USA
 Everyone is permitted to copy and distribute verbatim copies
 of this license document, but changing it is not allowed."

*** changing it is not allowed ***

Has it been changed?

I am not sure if the GPLhas any entire agreement intent such that you can't 
have a meta license which modifies the GPL itself rather than a dual license 
play.
>
> Anyway, GPL programs fork all the time. I'm not trying to 'subvert'
> anything. The 'story' was that they were 'contacted' by someone and
> decide to go that direction for reasons never made public. That's
> their business. I *think* people have asked a few times over the last
> few years if anyone had some GPL code. I found it today. I'll provide
> it as long as the stated intention is for use in a GPL project. I
> *think* that's for the good of people using GPL software. Nothing
> more.
>
> Cheers,
> Mark

all the best,

drew