17 Sep
2008
17 Sep
'08
5:12 p.m.
On Wed, Sep 17, 2008 at 08:44:17PM +0200, Arnold Krille wrote:
Apart from my last paragraph (about using what suites
best) I never talked
about my priorities.
Hmmm... maybe I guessed wrong. Since you seem to support linuxsampler
in spite of its license, I was thinking that your priority was features
over freedom. Sorry if it was not the case (maybe you was not aware of
the commercial exception, then ???).
But I would be really curious which other objective
mistakes (apart from the
ls-stuff) you found in my mail.
The others are more or less subjective, except for the definition of
what is a free file format; I'm also sure you are missing something
regarding this other issue, just give me some time to find the link
(I've read it a long time ago and don't have it right now...) I will
send it to you by private email, since I think that most people in the
list won't care very much about this ;-)
I never said that fluidsynth isn't free. I only
said that both gig and sf2 are
not free formats. (free as in defined by the fsf (could have picked any other
real-free-organization))
Now I wonder, in your opinion, what's required to make a file format
"free" besides its internal documentation? An ISO stardard or
something "official"?
But: I just checked my local tarball of 0.5.1 and
while the README states the
non-commercial exception, neither the COPYING-file with the license text nor
the source-files itself have that exception. But I don't want to restart
these old discussions...
It is not a legal requirement to have the complete license notice in
all files. There are many sources that don't even include the GPL
header at all (like the esound sources, if I remember correctly), but
I agree that it would be much better to always put it, just to be clear.
Maybe someone should start freesampler... ;-)
It is on my task list since about one year! :-)
I'm been very busy involved in other free software projects (and still
I am), so it will remain in my task list for a long time, I'm afraid :-(