7 Dec
2005
7 Dec
'05
8:09 p.m.
On 12/7/05, Lars Luthman <larsl(a)users.sourceforge.net> wrote:
On Wed, 2005-12-07 at 14:04 -0800, Mark Knecht wrote:
Yep, this was the problem and you interpret it as many others do. The
Debian folks didn't like this so much that they dropped LS from their
releases. I think that the LS developers weren't taking the commercail
thing quite as far as you are. They seemed more interested in keeping
Synth manufacturers from using the code, which is disappointing sime a
good software company could pick this up and run with it quite
quickly. This would be great for us users, should they every do it.
Note that this license modification was not in the latest official
release the last time I looked. It was only in the CVS version so
there is an opportunity to fork the database and put a development
team together to keep it truly Open Source, should someone care enough
to do so.
Cheers,
Mark
LinuxSampler is a good program but has recently
considered straying
from the Open Source model. Please read the License Agreement included in
the CVS version for more info. For these reasons I've ceased using it. My
comments are probably a bit dated these days as I've not tried or even
paid attention to the program in a few months.
Their CVS server isn't responding, so I can't see the whole License
Agreement. But I see this on the web page:
LinuxSampler is licensed under the GNU GPL license with the exception
that COMMERCIAL USE of the souce code, libraries and applications is
NOT ALLOWED without prior written permission by the LinuxSampler
authors. If you have questions on the subject please contact us.
This is pretty nasty - if I interpret it correctly, it means that
LinuxSampler is no longer free software (at least not as defined by the
FSF, http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html ) and not even freeware,
since a producer making commercial music would have to pay to use it.
The LinuxSampler hackers are of course free to license their code any
way they want, but I wish people who add this kind of exceptions to the
GPL would call it something else instead of "GNU GPL with exception
foo". That will just confuse people when the license is uncompatible
with the GPL.