3 Jul
2006
3 Jul
'06
7:56 p.m.
On Mon, 2006-07-03 at 08:33 -0400, Paul Davis wrote:
On Mon, 2006-07-03 at 02:26 +0700, Patrick Shirkey
wrote:
Everyone can make assumptions about what they can or can't do until the
cows come home, but it's irrelevant. The point it the license needs
clarification.
The disclaimer in the README is along the lines of what they intend to
say (judging by the previously pasted quotes). The disclaimer on the
webpage clearly makes it illegal to use LS on a CD you intend to sell,
or in public concerts you sell tickets to (a goal that is specifically
mentioned on the About page I might add), so if that isn't the intention
it should be fixed. There is no disclaimer on the source files at all,
so those are pure GPL with no commercial restrictions whatsoever.
What IS the license to LinuxSampler? Who knows. They certainly havn't
told us.
-DR-
If they really want to get people to give money
then they should just
make it so that you have to pay or contribute code/time for a while to
get access to the newest downloads from their site. Keep the stable
version far enough behind the development version that people will pay
to get the newest code base.
its really rather amusing to see people speculating on what the
developers of LS could or could not do, when the actual relevant
"encounter" with "commercial interests" has *already* happened. it
did
not go well. it can be tempting to imagine that we understand the
motivations of commercial organizations and can therefore offer them
appropriate carrots. don't be so confident of this. both the LS
developers and myself are under the terms of an NDA, so it is not
possible to discuss with any relevant detail precisely what happened.
but it was nasty, it was unpleasant and as i've said before, it would be
better for people to not make so many assumptions about their ability to
guess at what might or might happen when a commercial company shows
interest in a tool like LS.