25 Jan
2008
25 Jan
'08
9:06 p.m.
On Thu, 2008-01-24 at 21:27 +0000, Christian Schoenebeck wrote:
Am Donnerstag, 24. Januar 2008 20:15:35 schrieb Esben
Stien:
The one that points directly to the OSI definition in the first
sentence, and says "If the latter is denied the license is categorized
as a shared source license." you mean?
-DR-
But that's really the funny thing here. Your
software isn't from the
free/open source software communities. It doesn't conform to neither
the free software definition nor the open source definition.
Wrong: http://linuxsampler.org/faq.html#open_source
Btw, only LS (the engine) has that commercial exception. There's however still
other software components hosted by the project which are all distributed
under "true" / pure (L)GPL. And after all, most of us contributed to various
other open source projects as well, so your statement is really wrong.