17 Oct
2007
17 Oct
'07
4:37 p.m.
On Wed, 2007-10-17 at 19:25 +0200, Arnold Krille wrote:
I am not a lawyer, but neither the COPYING-file nor the (randomly
picked)
src/linuxsampler.cpp state anything but gplv2 (or later) for the
license.
The README states something about getting the authors authorization to
use the
app in commercial software or hardware. While I think this is some
legit
modification because they don't want their work to be used
commercially
without them knowing, I don't think this rule applies as they probably
didn't
ask all the participating authors (and the AUTHORS file states quite a
few)
for their permission to change the license.
This additional restriction (no commercial use without explicit
permissions from the authors) has two problems:
1) It means that the software is not free as defined by the Free
Software Foundation and GNU Project. It goes against Freedom 2 of the
Free Software Definition[1]. A practical example of the problems this
creates is that a Linux distribution such as Fedora can not include
LinuxSampler because they place no restriction on end users making
copies and selling them - is this commercial software in the eyes of the
Linux Sampler developers?
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.
Keith.
[1] http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html
[2] http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#ModifyGPL