5 Jul
2006
5 Jul
'06
6:18 a.m.
On Tue, July 4, 2006 18:49, Dave Robillard wrote:
On Tue, 2006-07-04 at 09:32 +0100, Rui Nuno Capela
wrote:
Reading straight from almost every LS source file headers, I guess you're
right. GPL is the fundamental licensing terms of LS, and I think it will
remain that way. My concern was only related to the LS core developers
position regarding the issue Paul mentioned.
Even tought I'm in the LS developer list, my main contribution took the
form of Qsampler and liblscp, which are GPL and LGPL respectively. I must
tell that I have little or almost no privileged information about the
issue with the so-called "company". In fact, personally speaking of
course, I don't give a damn, because all my work has been given just for
fun. However ethically, I must give all the respect to every one of you
and all others that have put something palatable of their lives at stake.
Because they care.
Cheers,
--
rncbc aka Rui Nuno Capela
rncbc(a)rncbc.org
We already know that the LS license is currently flawed. As Christian
wrote explicitly, even thought the README file still has the infamous
exception wording, *ALL* public releases of LinuxSampler until and
including 0.3.3 *ARE* plain GPL. That last public release was more than
one year ago. Since then, LinuxSampler code in CVS has changed in many
pervasive ways, and AFAICT for the better, performance and
feature-wise.
I think you're missing the point. Current CVS LS *IS* effectively
GPLed.