2 May
2008
2 May
'08
10:35 a.m.
On Fri, May 2, 2008 at 4:38 AM, Dave Phillips <dlphillips(a)woh.rr.com> wrote:
Dave Phillips wrote:
Thank you Dave.
I looked at the FSF website last night and wondered about two things:
1) What you've asked them is about the license itself. Can author's
change parts of it on a whim? Can author's require their users comply
with part of the license but not with others. Those are interesting
questions.
2) From my specific point of view, I have a bunch of code which was
obtained from a CVS server and has a GPL license file included. Does
that make all the software GPL? Probably not. How does one determine
whether each and every file is covered under GPL? Does each file need
to have a header that says it's released under GPL? If a file has no
headers at all and was released to the public does that mean it has no
protection? Can and will the FSF do checking of a package like this to
tell me what is or isn't GPL in this set of files?
I'd rather know than guess, so okay, I'll
take it on myself to contact
someone at the FSF about the acceptability of the current LS license wrt
the GPL.
I've written to compliance(a)fsf.org and asked them to issue a
determination regarding LS's commercial exception clause. Specifically
I've asked whether it is a violation of the GPL. I asked only regarding
the linuxsampler component, since all other parts of the project are
covered by the GPL with no exceptions (a point usually left unstated).
I await their judgment.
From my point of view I'd like to know if we can
start a clean project
at this point. I'm not ready to invest a lot of my time as
I'm not
really qualified to say. Maybe they can help? Let us know what sort of
answer your receive, and should a lawyer type person want or need to
look at the code I'd have no problems sending a copy.
Cheers,
Mark