1 Jul
2006
1 Jul
'06
6:09 p.m.
On Sat, 2006-07-01 at 20:56 +0100, Rui Nuno Capela wrote:
Patrick Shirkey wrote:
Noone said that.
Lars Luthman wrote:
When did it happen that when some software project is not GPL is not
open-source? E.g. apache is not GPL, so it must not be open-source? On Sat, 2006-07-01 at 23:53 +0700, Patrick
Shirkey wrote:
So then it is definitely not open source due to the current license.
Dave Robillard wrote:
> On Sat, 2006-07-01 at 17:43 +0200, Luis Garrido wrote:
>>> LinuxSampler is not free software or open source software.
>>>
>> (sigh, must we, really?)
>>
>> It depends on who you choose to side with.
> Forget "free software" then, I don't mean to start any debate, and
> there's no "sides" here. Just that people are talking about writing
> open source alternatives to things (Kontakt) and referring to
> LinuxSampler as the project to do so, so it should be pointed out so
> people aren't misled.
>
> LinuxSampler is not open source.
>
It's veeeery close though.
It's just using a modified GPL License which isn't clearly labelled
as such. IANAL but that makes LinuxSampler illegally licensed if
someone wanted to make a fuss about it. They call it GPL version 2 or
3 but it has been modified so that nullifies it AFAIK. If they don't
fix it and someone does use their software to make a financial gain
then it could very easily be argued that the software is licensed as
GPL 2 or 3 and that makes it 100% open source.
I don't think so. If the GPL is combined with some other license
agreement or restriction that is not compatible with the GPL, it
automatically cancels itself (see paragraph 7,
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl.txt ) and normal copyright law applies.
Which in most countries means that only the actual copyright owner (if
there is a single one) is allowed to distribute it. Problem with linuxsampler license void its all about
that infamous
exception clause on the README file, "that it may NOT be used in
COMMERCIAL software or hardware products without prior written
authorization by the authors."
Beside the simple fact that it voids the GPL, it certainly doesn't make
it closed-source
Actually yes it does, by the "official" open source definition (which is
clearly what people refer to when they use the term "open source".
http://www.opensource.org/docs/definition.php
Whether or not you agree with the licensing practise, calling it "open
source" is as misleading as calling MS shared source "open source".
Defend the license/exception if you want, but don't intentionally
mislead people about the licensing terms.
-DR-