Hi,
I'd like to clarify a few questions regarding GPL and LinuxSampler.
The GPL implicitly prohibits third parties from selling a computer program
licensed under the terms of GPL, by only allowing the following, quoting
GPL:
"...if you distribute copies of such a program, whether gratis or for a
fee..."
"... You may charge a fee for the physical act of transferring a copy..."
"You must cause any work that you distribute or publish, that in whole or in
part contains or is derived from the Program or any part thereof, to be
licensed as a whole at no charge to all third parties under the terms of
this License."
Basically:
1. selling a computer program licensed under the terms of GPL and
2. charging a fee for distribution of a computer program licensed under the
terms of GPL / charging for a physical act of transferring a copy
are 2 entirely different things.
When you sell a computer program you are charging for the costs(human
resources - developers, designers; technical resources - computers etc) you
have put into *developing a computer program* plus you are charging an
adittional fee based on your estimation of value that your product would
have on the market(offer/demand stuff)
When you distribute a computer program or charge a fee for physical act of
transferring a copy you are charging for the costs you have put into
*distribution of a computer program* plus you are charging an additional fee
based on your estimation of value that your *distribution service* would
have on the market.
This means that:
1. usage of a computer program licensed under the terms of GPL in a hardware
product, whether modified or not, is not a distribution of a computer
program licensed under the terms of GPL, and is thus prohibited by GPL.
2. usage of a computer program licensed under the terms of GPL, whether
modified or not, in a software product, the intention of which is not to
distribute a computer program licensed under the terms of GPL, is not a
distribution of a computer program licensed under the terms of GPL, and is
thus prohibited by GPL.
No.1 of course has an exception, you would have to sell a computer that has
a computer program licensed under the terms of GPL installed on it as a part
of distribution, for the purpose of selling the computer(for example with
preinstalled Linux distribution)
No.2 has several scenarios:
a) a distribution is an obvious case where a given computer program licensed
under the terms of GPL is a part of a bigger software product, the sole
purpose of which is to distribute, thus a distribution is fully GPL
compliant whether made available for transfer at no charge, or selled as a
package in stores.
b) a scenario where computer program must not be modified in order to become
part of another comuter program "...thus forming a work based on the
Program..." This means that if a computer program as a whole, whether
modified or not, becomes part of another computer program at *source-code*
level, then the terms of GPL apply to such derived work.
You can derive a work from another at source code level(by modifying the
original, by adding code to it while not modifying the original, or both)
but you can also derive a work at binary level. And if fact, the GPL doesn't
differentiate between source-code and binary level derived works:
"...any work that you distribute or publish, that in whole or in part
contains or is derived from the Program or any part thereof..."
So suppose a software developer goes on developing a cool GUI for a computer
program licensed under the terms of GPL which he intends to sell.
The GUI talks to the GPLed computer program via some kind of IPC.
He can claim that he's charging for his own program and distributing the
GPLed computer program along with it, since the two are in fact 2 separate
applications that communicate through IPC.
This might be true, but consider the following - the GPLed computer program
is capable of functioning as a standalone application, whereas the GUI
application is practically useless without the GPLed computer program, ans
is thus a derived work at *binary-level*.
The GPL states, that "...in whole or in part contains or is derived from the
Program...", which means, whether at source code level or binary level.
This has the following consequences:
A proprietary computer program that is not capable of functioning as a
standalone computer program, and is communicating with a computer program
licensed under the terms of GPL, in order to ensure its purpose and proper
functioning, is a derived work under the terms of GPL, thus the terms of GPL
apply to such work, and a software developer of such proprietary computer
program is *also* violating the terms of GPL by not distributing the
computer program licensed under the terms of GPL for the sole purpose of
distributing it.
So to summarize that with respect to LinuxSampler, the exception
"LinuxSampler is licensed under the GNU GPL with the exception that USAGE of
the source code, libraries and applications FOR COMMERCIAL HARDWARE OR
SOFTWARE PRODUCTS IS NOT ALLOWED" is in fact no exception at all, and is
already covered by GPL.
If someone finds such interpretation too vague for his own taste, he can
simply make an amendment to the GPL license, stating that you can only
charge for distribution of Program for the sole purpose of distributing it,
but not for the actual Program, which would basically equal to the above
mentioned exception.
Also note that this only applies to *third parties*, not the actual
copyright holder. He can issue another license if someone finds GPL too
restrictive for his needs, and charge for it.
So LinuxSampler is basically a pure GPLed computer program.
Marek
