1 Jul
2006
1 Jul
'06
4:59 p.m.
On Sun, 2006-07-02 at 00:41 +0700, Patrick Shirkey wrote:
Lars Luthman wrote:
Indeed. A sampler you can't even use on an album you intend to sell or
in a performance you sell tickets to isn't exactly the most useful thing
in the world.
-DR-
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.
I hope they fix it soon. Dave Robillard wrote:
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.
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.