2 May
2008
2 May
'08
1:56 a.m.
On Thu, May 1, 2008 at 8:16 PM, Paul Coccoli <pcoccoli(a)gmail.com> wrote:
Well, I cannot require it legally. However I won't give anything out
without the recipient
On Thu, May 1, 2008 at 7:59 PM, Mark Knecht
<markknecht(a)gmail.com> wrote:
None, but I have no responsibility to distribute it either. If someone
convinces me that they intend to keep the project GPL, accept a copy
fro me, and then they don't keep it as a GPL project then shame on
them but I probably wouldn't have any rights to enforce the agreement
myself. Maybe the FSF would. I don't know. That's for lawyers.
My only requirements in providing this code
are:
1) Some sort of ongoing SourceForge or other publicly available
location for the project needs to be created and maintained by a small
group of project managers committed to the project. Responsibilities
and duties to be agreed upon.
So which clause of the license gives you the right to distribute with
additional requirements?
2) The license for this fork must remain
completely GPL forever.
Should someone want to make a commercial product from this fork then
the license should allow them to at least try. I expect they will run
into the same issues, whatever they were, that the original
LinuxSampler team had, but I do not want the license for this code to
prohibit them from trying and at least we'll get the issues out on the
table publicly.
If you are not the copyright holder, how can you require that the
license not be changed?
Shoudl you decide to redistribute this code, I would like a copy,
subject only to the terms under which it is licensed.
Those are the only terms I would distribute it. I'm not changing
ANYTHING in the license or indeed anything in ANY file. I have a copy,
properly obtained through the LS CVS server at a time when the project
seemed to claim GPL compliance. Every file seems to claim it's GPL to
be used as GPL. I don't claim there isn't something down deeper. There
may be. If I get time I might go looking for info inside the files to
argue against it's GPL heritage but for now it looks like pretty much
every other Open Source project I've looked at.
Again, I'm only saying I have a copy and could possibly be convinced
to provide it to others who are serious about making forward progress.
I REALLY don't think the casual user should use this code. At the time
I go this the project wasn't all that stable and lacked really
important features, some of which I think have been added in the
non-commercial, maybe GPL version.
Cheers,
Mark