3 Jul
2006
3 Jul
'06
7:51 a.m.
On Sun, Jul 02, 2006 at 02:37:57PM -0400, Dave Phillips wrote:
Andreas Kuckartz wrote:
My apologies, the text is Christian's I forgot an
end-quote. Just to be
complete, here's the entire message, including Matt Flax's original query :
Am Montag, 5. September 2005 04:40 schrieb Matt Flax:
>>This person brought up an issue where the GPL is tainted by something
>>written in one of the README files.
[Christian's response starts here:]
The idea about such a possible new license was to
allow "direct" commercial
usage of LS only if the commercial actor supported this or another
(important) open source project either directly by contributing code or
indirectly by funding the respective project. So somebody who supported
e.g. the GCC, ALSA or Jack Audio Connection Kit project might also be
allowed to use LS commercially. "Commercial usage" would of course only
mean products based on LS, it would of course not mean using LS e.g. for
commercial music production or something.
Why would you allow one particular type of commercial usage which does
not provide support for free software projects? What is the
difference between that particular type of commercial usage, and any
other type?
Bob