26 Jul
2009
26 Jul
'09
8:45 a.m.
On Sun, 2009-07-26 at 11:02 +0200, Arnold Krille wrote:
<snip>
Yep. That makes a lot of sense. Is the jmusic in question this one
http://jmusic.ci.qut.edu.au/ ?
It seems this software is treading deep in unlicensed waters. I can't
find any notion of the license under which jmusic is distributed. If one
googles the site for "license" (http://www.google.com/search?q=site%
3Ajmusic.ci.qut.edu.au+license ) you can find three hits, all about GPL
on _examples_ using jmusic. The source distribution of jmusic has no
licensing information at all. They might be in violation of sourceforges
user agreements.
Jeeze. This makes one wonder how people are not more careful about how
they release their work?
Sampo
Are you assuming the whole of Impro-visor is
subject to GPL as it has
violated the GPL of jmusic?
There is a nice page on the fsf website explaining the differences between gpl
and lgpl for libraries. The basic essence (as far as I understand it) is: If
you want all apps using your lib to be gpl (or free) use gpl for your lib. If
you want more spread against competitors and thus allow closed-source
development using your lib, use lgpl.
So the fact that Improvisor uses (and ships!) the gpl-ed jmusic, this makes
improvisor gpl. Not providing the source for improvisor (not even upon
request) is a violation of the gpl. Everyone has the right to complain about
that, the jmusic guys even have the right to sue against this.