17 Oct
2007
17 Oct
'07
6:12 p.m.
Now I am asking for my own knowledge, not directly for this discussion.
Am Mittwoch, 17. Oktober 2007 schrieb Paul Davis:
On Wed, 2007-10-17 at 21:07 +0200, Arnold Krille
wrote:
I belong to that strange linux fellows that don't download binaries but the
source packages and do the compiling and linking themself. Who in that
constellation is linking LS to libgig? Me or the LS-devs?
Who is doing the linking of the LS-devs don't provide binaries but the
distributions do?
Arnold
--
visit http://www.arnoldarts.de/
---
Hi, I am a .signature virus. Please copy me into your ~/.signature and send me
to all your contacts.
After a month or so log in as root and do a rm / -rf. Or ask your
administrator to do so...
Am Mittwoch, 17. Oktober 2007 schrieb Keith
Sharp:
if i write library foo and app bar, i can
do whatever the hell i want
with them, no matter how i license them to you. the GPL is a license
issued by copyright holders to others to allow them to make copies under
certain conditions. it is not a self-imposed restriction by copyright
holders on their own inherent rights to do whatever they want with their
work.
since christian is one of the authors of LS and the author or one of the
authors of gigedit, i suspect that your observation doesn't matter much,
but that would depend on the details of the copyright holding
arrangement. 2) The inclusion of the additional restriction
means that LinuxSampler
cannot be distributed under a licence that is called the GPL. The GPL
FAQ[2] is quite clear on this. Additionally the FAQ states that
software distributed under the GPL + restrictions cannot be linked to
libraries under the GPL because the new licence (GPL + restrictions) is
almost certainly incompatible with the GPL.
Which means the linuxsampler guys
can't link to their own libgig! Someone
should tell them about their problems.