2 Jul
2006
2 Jul
'06
3:48 p.m.
On Sun, 2006-07-02 at 10:28 -0700, Fernando Lopez-Lezcano wrote:
On Sat, 2006-07-01 at 15:51 -0400, Dave Robillard
wrote:
So I exxaggerated. :)
But like Bob said, the above link points to a file that clearly says
right in it that it's licensed under the GPL (v2 or later). There's a
similar link for every other file in LS, provided by the LS people
themselves.
So, if you want a fully GPLed version of CVS LS, just go through and
download every file with those links and you've got it.
-DR-
On Sat, 2006-07-01 at 20:33 +0100, Bob Ham
wrote:
Nope, it is (or at least was the last time I checked) mentioned in the,
I think, README file in the tarballs, up to and including 0.3.3. On Sat, 2006-07-01 at 23:53 +0700, Patrick
Shirkey wrote:
Definitely, at the end of the day there is no way in hell their
"exception" would hold up in court, since they basically just mention it
in passing on the web page. 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.
It's just using a modified GPL License which isn't clearly labelled as
such.
According to this URL
http://cvs.linuxsampler.org/cgi-bin/viewcvs.cgi/linuxsampler/src/Sampler.cp…
I have permission to use that particular file under the GPL, or (at my
option) any later version. Looking through a few other files and I see
I have the same permissions for those. Seems to be open source *and*
free software *and* released under the GPL *and* free-as-in-beer.
*shrug*