30 Dec
2010
30 Dec
'10
5:40 p.m.
On Thu, Dec 30, 2010 at 6:48 AM, drew Roberts <zotz(a)100jamz.com> wrote:
On Wednesday 29 December 2010 16:31:03 Andrew C
wrote:
IMO it meets neither in that redistribution is limited by the changes
in the license which made it non-GPL.
The 'source' is 'open' in the sense that we can get copies, look at
the code & modify it and use it. Unfortunately we are restricted
(granted, restricted in ways that likely don't matter much to
individual musicians) in our _use_ of the code via redistribution into
commercial platforms.
- Mark
Last time I checked, LS is Open Source,
Are you saying it meets this:
http://www.opensource.org/osd.html
Do you think it also meets this:
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html
all the best,
drew