5 Aug
2009
5 Aug
'09
5:53 a.m.
Quoting "alex stone" <compose59(a)gmail.com>om>:
Interesting stuff, espcially when you consider that
but a week or 2
ago, another chap from a university, who was unaware of the
implications of the GPL, got nailed for not releasing his code as per
a strict definition of the GPL, and took a lot of sustained abuse for
it as a result. He's moved quickly to remedy this and asked for help,
not wanting to let ignorance of the facts get in the way of doing the
right thing.
You are making the wrongful assumption that the LAD list speaks with
one voice. The impro-visor thread proved that beyond any doubt. There
was anger, but also a lot of sympathy towards the said professor.
I got a very curtious email from the president of Beat Kangz last
night. They are offering to put up credits and are hinting towards
giving donations to ladspa developers. This is probably because they
want to smooch over this nasty "detail" and they probably feel this
could be a mutually beneficial relationship. They are also offering a
free copy of their software.
I feel a bit ambivalent about the violation. The ladspa interface
should protect a host from the virality of a GPL'd plugin. This means
that the host code can be as proprietary as the copyright holder
wants. Fact is though that they do distribute GPL'd plugins. I am
sympathetic to this decision as most normal users want things to work
out of the box without a horde of installers. I'm also a bit flattered
that they chose my limiter for their software. But they should give me
credit for it. The fact that they didn't do this before they were
alerted to it, speaks for how businesses often work.
To sum up how I see it, the violation is only skin deep: They are not
giving plugin authors credit and they should also note that their
application comes bundled with GPL'd software.
So, at least at the moment I'm leaning towards accepting the offered
solution to the violation. Any thoughts?
Sampo