3 Jan
2003
3 Jan
'03
11:14 a.m.
I would pay for someone to add value to the way the loops are packaged. 1000
loops in a big directory are not interesting. 100 directories with 10 loops
each is really valuable if those 10 loops work really well together.
Don't ask me why, but I actually do buy most of my Linux distributions even
though I can get them for free. I think lots of people are sort of like me.
I know RH needs to make money to be viable in the future, so I donate a bit
here and there. I suspect that some people, but not all, will do the same
here.
-----Original Message-----
From: linux-audio-user-admin(a)music.columbia.edu
[mailto:linux-audio-user-admin@music.columbia.edu]On Behalf Of Frank
Barknecht
Sent: Friday, January 03, 2003 3:07 AM
To: linux-audio-user(a)music.columbia.edu
Subject: Re: [linux-audio-user] The Open Music Resource Library -
Licensing
Hi,
Daniel James wrote:
fbar wrote
Ghostscript
I was referring to the Open Source (tm) guidelines, that say in part 1:
The license shall not restrict any party from selling or
giving away the
software as a component of an aggregate software distribution
containing
programs from several different sources. The license shall not
require a
royalty or other fee for such sale.
Rationale: By constraining the license to require free
redistribution,
we eliminate the temptation to throw away many long-term
gains in order
to make a few short-term sales dollars. If we didn't do this, there
would be lots of pressure for cooperators to defect.
see http://www.opensource.org
Allowing selling or disallowing it makes a fundamental
difference. If I for
example write an open source game that uses loops from the OMRL in its
soundtrack, it could not be part of a distribution like Debian, that many
companies sell on CD.
If I construct a Pd patch to comfortably play those loops, it could not be
part of the AGNULA distribution, if it includes the loops, because someday
AGNULA CD's will get sold.
These are just two simple examples as to what problems the restriction of
selling could lead. I can think of many more. In the end, with
this license
OMRL would be just another sampling library, that restricts distribution.
What about encouraging selling and encouraging distribution? The license
could have the viral GNU catch, that copying and reselling of a CD's
contents shall not be restricted by a third party producer. This way, some
enterprise could make and sell CDs with OMRL, but I and anyone would be
allowed to copy those for friends and enemies, if one feels the urge to do
so.
This would be more in the spirit of free software, IMO, and it
would indeed
be something new.
Discussion is open.
ciao
--
Frank Barknecht
All open source software
allows selling.
There are licences that restrict or ban selling - the Aladin