Re: [LAU] Yamaha Disklavier Pro grand piano

Am Mittwoch, 17. September 2008 schrieb Roberto Gordo Saez: While I am an open-source freak I am also more in the spirit of use whatever suits your needs and does the job best. And if you think linuxsampler is bad because of the non-commercial license, all art CC-BY-NC is bad. It feels kind of irritating that the ls-guys had to include such a statement, but on the other hand I do understand their reasons to do so. They could have refined it to say "without our notice/approval" which would have helped distributions, but I think all but the core debian includes linuxsampler without troubles (and debian would be the only true-non-commercial distribution who wouldn't even get into problems there...). So you guessed right, only it was not a direct part of the discussion. (It is not about me, it is about you:) Maybe "not developed as a closed format and only published later on without input from the world/community and without room/hooks for extensions". I don't think I have a definitive answer (apart from that LV2 would be a truly free format because it allows so many extension you have to ask what actually is defined by the "standard"), but I think "not a free format because there is no truly free[tm] implementation" is not a sane way of thinking. However I do think (and respect) that "I won't support it because there is no free implementation" is a valid reason for (not) doing something. It is your time and effort after all. (And I can't wait to get my music machine up and running again to test your soundfont.) Well, I am not a lawyer. A while back I tried to get a lawyers opinion to making some source open source but that lead to three different answer (from that one guy) so I waited until I was not employed there anymore but still working on that project... But what I learned is: You need to state the copyright-holders of each file in the file. Otherwise it definitely gets lost (it can still "get lost" but that leads to legal action). And you should state the license. And the LS-files (that is the source files themself) state "GPLv2 or later". So from my point of view it would be legal to take the source files, tar them up with a new readme (without the exception) and publish that. That wouldn't be very nice to the LS-devs, but as far as I know, it should be legal... BTW: that "GPLvX or any later" is somehow dangerous, because you don't know what the later versions of the license contain. Could be they get bought/sued by evil opponents and the v4 is not free at all. Would make your code licensed under a non-free license... I hate these discussions about legal things. Which is the reason my (private) codes are (L)GPL. But I don't despise apps or devs who don't use GPL or apply exceptions. In fact I am very convinced of Qt. Have a nice day/evening/night (depending on your timezone), 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...