10 Dec
2005
10 Dec
'05
10:13 p.m.
On 12/10/05, Lee Revell <rlrevell(a)joe-job.com> wrote:
On Sat, 2005-12-10 at 20:49 +0000, Pete Leigh wrote:
Lee & others,
I may be wrong but I believe that the answers to this are in the
archives if someone wanted to go through them and find it.
The proble with asking is that while the answer may be true today
it may not be true in the future.
- Mark
On 10/12/05, James Stone
<jmstone(a)dsl.pipex.com> wrote:
Hi James,
I hope (and am quite prepared to believe) you're right. Just that it
doesn't specifically say that - it just says "commercial use [...] is
not allowed", which is a little vague. That's why I'm suggesting a
clarification for those unwilling to make assumptions might be
a good idea :-)
Rather than speculate any further someone really should ask them. If
they mean "commercial distribution of the software" they need to say
that rather than "commercial use" which I suspect is too vague to have
an unambiguous legal definition.
Lee
On Thu, 08 Dec 2005 08:33:58 +0000, Pete Leigh
wrote:
> Still, without explaining any more, would it
be an idea for the authors to
> indicate what their likely response would be under some easily imaginable
> scenarios, like: "I'm about to release a commercial album where linux
> sampler was used in production. May I?"
From my
understanding, it is the commercial exploitation of the software,
rather than the
sale of music written with the software that they are
trying to limit: so if you were to build a linux based synth, and sell it
with LS installed, they would like to get some money from you for it,
which they would not be able to do under the GPL.