14 Apr
2006
14 Apr
'06
9:55 a.m.
Mark Knecht wrote:
When people use the Open Source community to develop an
application,
but then take it private in an apparentl attempt to use it for their
personal financial benefit, we get things like this happening. It's
not that it isn't available. I suppose it is. I just use GigaStudio
and Acid Pro for my sampling and loop playing needs and left LS
behind.
I'm not making much sense of this rationale, Mark. In the first place I
haven't yet seen proof that LS is being developed for someone's personal
financial benefit or that it's been "taken private". I just now
downloaded the latest CVS sources, no problem.
However, I do agree that the authors' stipulation re: commercial work is
in opposition to the GPL. I've heard RMS address this issue a few times,
he's been clear about it: The GPL doesn't interfere with deployment,
period. If someone wants to use LS in a commercial venture, they can do
so *as long as* they abide by all other terms of the license.
Or am I missing something else ?
And of course, with GS and AP we can have no such moral, ethical, or
ideological concerns because we accept from the point of purchase that
we can know absolutely *nothing* regarding their code base, whether
they've lifted code from anywhere, or even whether they use their
profits from our purchases to fund oppressive regimes. We just want the
tool, we want no involvement with it beyond its use. Which is good,
because most manufacturers seem to want little more from their customers
than the money anyway.
It starts to sound like prostitution, doesn't it ? ;-)
All of this is supposition and patently unfair, I'm
sure, but the
developers wouldn't explain their actions in an open forum so that
we'd understand it so we were (I was) left with no option but to
guess.
You stated specifically in an earlier message that the authors switched
the license to a "non-Open Source" license. What license is that ? The
only license I see advertised on the LS Web site is the GPL. Please
elucidate. :)
I'll write to Christian about this issue. I'd like to include LS in the
book project, and I've planned to profile it in my column for LJ, so I
want clarity re: the license. Of one thing I'm certain: The GPL does not
internally restrict deployment, and the LS authors would be prudent to
remove the stipulation.
Btw, the stipulation itself, however commendably motivated, flies in the
face of the GPL's intention to protect the rights of the *user*. This
alone should be reason enough to remove it.
Just my dos pesos.
Best,
dp