19 Apr
2006
19 Apr
'06
5:01 p.m.
I'm now more worried about the mental state of LS developers
because they are aware of the feedback given by Debian people.
It is unbelievable that a free, open source software gets kicked
out off Debian. Making harm to thousands of free software friends
because of only a few commercial audio developers. It does not make
sense.
Juhana
--
http://music.columbia.edu/mailman/listinfo/linux-graphics-dev
for developers of open source graphics software
19 Apr
19 Apr
5:33 p.m.
On Wed, 2006-04-19 at 22:00 +0300, Juhana Sadeharju wrote:
I'm now more worried about the mental state of LS
developers
because they are aware of the feedback given by Debian people.
It is unbelievable that a free, open source software gets kicked
out off Debian. Making harm to thousands of free software friends
because of only a few commercial audio developers. It does not make
sense.
Why? It's their software, they can choose any license they want. They
just don't want to be ripped off by someone commercializing their
software and not paying them.
Lee
6:01 p.m.
I have worked for diverse unix and networking companies for about 20 years
now, I know that sounds like I am going to give an OldHat comment, but the
reputation of what is now GPL software has changed dramatically.
I first worked with the 0.99 Linux kernel, and, at the time, people in the
industry had the opinion that Public Domain (GPL/Whatever) software was
buggy, rather full of holes and not really ready for commercial or
professional use. If you speak to the same people now that has totally
changed, public domain software is respected far ahead of most commercially
available applications, whether that is in audio, security, web services,
etc. The feeling that software development companies have a single goal
which is to make money is widely understood, whilst that open source
developers want products that work and fit requirements has only now become
respected. I actually deal with multibillion dollar companies who want and
prefer open source applications, the whole community of developers make sure
that these applications do what they say on the tin.
This leaves a big hole in the GPL, since software developers are now making
products that the industry wants, and making it available for free. A lot of
people are using this to their advantage, taking 'public domain' software
private, making money, and not re-releasing their improvements back to the
community.
What I want to say is the migration of Linux Sampler from GPL to any other
form of license is just a recognition of a massive shift in the market, and
perhaps something that GPL needs to come to terms with.
From: Lee Revell <rlrevell(a)joe-job.com>
Reply-To: A list for linux audio users
<linux-audio-user(a)music.columbia.edu>
To: A list for linux audio users <linux-audio-user(a)music.columbia.edu>
Subject: Re: [linux-audio-user] Re: distorting Linuxsampler
Date: Wed, 19 Apr 2006 15:33:40 -0400
On Wed, 2006-04-19 at 22:00 +0300, Juhana Sadeharju wrote:
_________________________________________________________________
Express yourself instantly with MSN Messenger! Download today it's FREE!
http://messenger.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200471ave/direct/01/
I'm now more worried about the mental state
of LS developers
because they are aware of the feedback given by Debian people.
It is unbelievable that a free, open source software gets kicked
out off Debian. Making harm to thousands of free software friends
because of only a few commercial audio developers. It does not make
sense.
Why? It's their software, they can choose any license they want. They
just don't want to be ripped off by someone commercializing their
software and not paying them.
Lee
6:34 p.m.
Nick Copeland wrote:
What I want to say is the migration of Linux Sampler from GPL to any
other form of license is just a recognition of a massive shift in the
market, and perhaps something that GPL needs to come to terms with.
It's a good point that you raise and I know Mark is well aware of this
given his work history ;)
I think the people who wrote the GPL had a pretty fair idea of the
multinational corporate environment when they wrote the License.
I find it strange that Mark is willing to use the other completely
proprietry apps but not LS simply because they have a small clause in
their license which demands commercial companies get their permission
before embedding the code.
It has nothing to do with the end user :?
But it also seems strange that they haven't been taken to task for
altering the GPL. That is definitely illegal AFAIK. Doesn't the BSD
license cover their needs?
Cheers.
--
Patrick Shirkey - Boost Hardware Ltd.
Http://www.boosthardware.com
Http://www.djcj.org/LAU/guide/ - The Linux Audio Users guide
========================================
"Anything your mind can see you can manifest physically, then it will
become reality" - Macka B
8:09 p.m.
Patrick Shirkey wrote:
Nick Copeland wrote:
I'm looking at the sources for LS and the only license I see there is
the GPL, so AFAICT there's been no change in license. However, in the
README we find this gem :
"The LinuxSampler library (liblinuxsampler) and its applications are
distributed under the terms of the GNU General Public License (see
COPYING file), but with the EXCEPTION that they may NOT be used in
COMMERCIAL software or hardware products without prior written
authorization by the authors."
I read through their COPYING, it's the 1991 version of the license (v.2,
not 2.1). I can't find anything that expressly denies the authors their
right to make this exception, but it is contrary to the first of the
FSF's Four Freedoms:
The freedom to run the program, for any purpose.
I suppose we can start splitting hairs over the essential differences
between using a program and running a program. Anyway, I think this is
where things get shaky between LS and the GPL.
What I want to say is the migration of Linux Sampler from GPL to any
other form of license is just a recognition of a massive shift in the
market, and perhaps something that GPL needs to come to terms with.
It's a good point that you raise and I know Mark is well aware of this
given his work history ;) I think the people who wrote the GPL had a pretty fair
idea of the
multinational corporate environment when they wrote the License.
Maybe not.
I find it strange that Mark is willing to use the
other completely
proprietry apps but not LS simply because they have a small clause in
their license which demands commercial companies get their permission
before embedding the code.
Well, it appears to violate the spirit if not the letter of the GPL.
Mark's central objection, IIRC, was that he didn't want to donate code
to a project that wasn't fully compliant with the GPL. I don't see this
as a conflict with his decision to use proprietary software, it's a
different contract.
But it also seems strange that they haven't been
taken to task for
altering the GPL. That is definitely illegal AFAIK. Doesn't the BSD
license cover their needs?
Again, they haven't altered the GPL. They've included a clause in the
README that is provocative to GPL hard-liners and is *possibly* illegal.
IANAL.
The sooner this issue is resolved, the better for everyone. Frank
Neumann needs some assistance with a file format problem in LS, but he
needs help from someone who already runs GigaSampler...
Best,
dp
20 Apr
20 Apr
12:28 a.m.
On Wednesday 19 April 2006 23:10, Dave Phillips was like:
"The LinuxSampler library (liblinuxsampler) and
its applications are
distributed under the terms of the GNU General Public License (see
COPYING file), but with the EXCEPTION that they may NOT be used in
COMMERCIAL software or hardware products without prior written
authorization by the authors."
The way Debian types leap on license problems can seem rather harsh sometimes.
Sometimes, as with the Portaudio license, this can get stupidly picky. In
this case the LS developers are making it clear that they do not want to be
distributed by Debian. DFSG is very clear on this point. I think it is a
shame, but it is their software and they are entitled to license it exactly
how they choose. It does mean that LinuxSampler will never become the
flagship application that its name implies. Yeah, MO, sure.
--
cheers,
tim hall
http://glastonburymusic.org.uk/tim
11:41 a.m.
On Thu, 2006-04-20 at 03:28 +0100, tim hall wrote:
this case the LS developers are making it clear that
they do not want to be
distributed by Debian. DFSG is very clear on this point. I think it is a
shame, but it is their software and they are entitled to license it exactly
how they choose. It does mean that LinuxSampler will never become the
flagship application that its name implies. Yeah, MO, sure.
i heard an interesting comment from mike shaver of the firefox/mozilla
project last year. he wondered openly why on earth they (mozilla.org)
would actually want their software distributed by third parties. third
parties who compile and package in ways beyond their control.
this assumption that inclusion in a distro is the only way to get
software to linux users needs careful examination.
12:25 p.m.
On Thursday 20 April 2006 14:45, Paul Davis was like:
On Thu, 2006-04-20 at 03:28 +0100, tim hall wrote:
That is an interesting and salient point. The way I see it, the point of a
distro is to provide a stable base. It does not need to contain all the
software under the sun. The fact that Debian or any other distro cannot
distribute something really is not the end of the world. I am very happy to
use non-commercial software myself, however currently that means seeking it
out and usually compiling it. No big deal. Many users are lazy, stupid and
want everything handed to them on a plate[0], they will use what they are
given and moan when it does not do as they expect. Firefox has probably done
enough promotion to maintain their market share, let´s face it, it is not
distributed with MSWindows is it?
I think LinuxSampler actually could use distro support at the moment and MO is
that it will not achieve the flagship status that it may deserve otherwise.
My experience of 3rd party distribution is that you have to allow people to
take commercial advantage of your product to make distribution worthwhile.
This brings up another whole load of issues that I do not want to go into
right now. I do not see the need for all the apparent emotionality around the
subject. Debian operates under a strict set of rules, which is what makes it
different from other distros. I challenge the idea that Debian is somehow
being mean by doing this.
--
cheers,
tim hall
http://glastonburymusic.org.uk/tim
[0] I am fully aware that this is an appalling generalisation. ;)
this case the LS developers are making it clear
that they do not want to
be distributed by Debian. DFSG is very clear on this point. I think it is
a shame, but it is their software and they are entitled to license it
exactly how they choose. It does mean that LinuxSampler will never become
the flagship application that its name implies. Yeah, MO, sure.
i heard an interesting comment from mike shaver of the firefox/mozilla
project last year. he wondered openly why on earth they (mozilla.org)
would actually want their software distributed by third parties. third
parties who compile and package in ways beyond their control.
this assumption that inclusion in a distro is the only way to get
software to linux users needs careful examination. 
21 Apr
21 Apr
6:56 a.m.
On Thu, Apr 20, 2006 at 09:45:28AM -0400, Paul Davis wrote:
[...]
i heard an interesting comment from mike shaver of the firefox/mozilla
project last year. he wondered openly why on earth they (mozilla.org)
would actually want their software distributed by third parties. third
parties who compile and package in ways beyond their control.
this assumption that inclusion in a distro is the only way to get
software to linux users needs careful examination.
Seen from the perspective of a user, there are very good reasons to get
your software with the distro:
* It is far more convenient. You do not have to go elsewhere to find
your software, everything is just an apt-get (or similar) away.
* You are sure that the software fits in with the rest of the system
(dependencies, versions, ...)
* Distribution packages are in general more trustworthy than 3rd party
packages
* You are certain that the software may be installed (and deinstalled)
with your usual package management system.
The main drawback is that distributions often are somewhat delayed, one
does not get the very freshest software. On the other hand, the most
recent version of something often requires recent versions of other
software, and there you go again, hunting packages from all over,
having to compile yourself, spending time and getting problems.
Asbjørn
10:40 a.m.
On Fri, 2006-04-21 at 10:56 +0200, Asbjørn Sæbø wrote:
The main drawback is that distributions often are
somewhat delayed, one
does not get the very freshest software. On the other hand, the most
recent version of something often requires recent versions of other
software, and there you go again, hunting packages from all over,
having to compile yourself, spending time and getting problems.
have you ever installed firefox? it doesn't work that way. the binary is
statically linked. its not quite as easy as (yum|apt-get) install
firefox, but its nothing like the process you are referring to.
12:07 p.m.
On Fri, Apr 21, 2006 at 08:44:04AM -0400, Paul Davis wrote:
On Fri, 2006-04-21 at 10:56 +0200, Asbjørn Sæbø
wrote:
On Linux, only the versions coming with debian/demudi. But that does
not count in this respect.
The main drawback is that distributions often are
somewhat delayed, one
does not get the very freshest software. On the other hand, the most
recent version of something often requires recent versions of other
software, and there you go again, hunting packages from all over,
having to compile yourself, spending time and getting problems.
have you ever installed firefox? it doesn't work that way. the binary is
statically linked. its not quite as easy as (yum|apt-get) install
firefox, but its nothing like the process you are referring to.
Good!
But then again, the static linking probably has a cost in increased size
of the binary?
Asbjørn
12:38 p.m.
On Fri, 2006-04-21 at 08:44 -0400, Paul Davis wrote:
On Fri, 2006-04-21 at 10:56 +0200, Asbjørn Sæbø
wrote:
On my system firefox is dynamically linked and many other packages
depend on it (like Epiphany, the Gnome browser). In fact there is a
huge debate on the Ubuntu list now because the Firefox devs are dropping
ALL support for 1.0.x (even security fixes) less than 6 months after 1.5
was released. Integrating 1.5 into a frozen distro will be a nightmare.
Lee
The main drawback is that distributions often are
somewhat delayed, one
does not get the very freshest software. On the other hand, the most
recent version of something often requires recent versions of other
software, and there you go again, hunting packages from all over,
having to compile yourself, spending time and getting problems.
have you ever installed firefox? it doesn't work that way. the binary is
statically linked. its not quite as easy as (yum|apt-get) install
firefox, but its nothing like the process you are referring to.
20 Apr
20 Apr
11 a.m.
New subject: [linux-audio-user] How to properly apply effects in Ardour
Hi all!
I'd like to know, how would you do in a situation like this: I have to put an
effect on a track in Ardour, but only in a certain point, not affecting the
whole extension of the track. What do you do to obtain this? Edit the track
with an external software? Doubling the track? Routing a track to a
purposely-created bus, and muting it where it's not needed? I suspect the
later is the best way, am I right?
Thansk!
Carotinho
___________________________________
Yahoo! Mail: gratis 1GB per i messaggi e allegati da 10MB
http://mail.yahoo.it
11:04 a.m.
New subject: [linux-audio-user] How to properly apply effects in Ardour
Carotinho wrote:
I'd like to know, how would you do in a situation
like this: I have to put an
effect on a track in Ardour, but only in a certain point, not affecting the
whole extension of the track. What do you do to obtain this? Edit the track
with an external software? Doubling the track? Routing a track to a
purposely-created bus, and muting it where it's not needed? I suspect the
later is the best way, am I right?
You can use automation with plugins directly in the track, just like you
can for pan and gain.
http://www.ardour.org/manual/mixing/automation
-- Brett
--
Brett McCoy: Programmer by Day, Guitarist by Night
http://www.alhazred.com
http://www.cassandrasyndrome.com
http://www.revelmoon.com
12:52 p.m.
New subject: [linux-audio-user] How to properly apply effects in Ardour
On Thu, 2006-04-20 at 01:13 +0200, Carotinho wrote:
Hi all!
I'd like to know, how would you do in a situation like this: I have to put an
effect on a track in Ardour, but only in a certain point, not affecting the
whole extension of the track. What do you do to obtain this? Edit the track
with an external software? Doubling the track? Routing a track to a
purposely-created bus, and muting it where it's not needed? I suspect the
later is the best way, am I right?
This has been asked and answered to in the ardour forum titled "How do
I ... ?" :)
See http://www.ardour.org/node/169
--
Sampo Savolainen <v2(a)iki.fi>
8:43 p.m.
New subject: [linux-audio-user] How to properly apply effects in Ardour
Hi!
Alle 16:51, giovedì 20 aprile 2006, Sampo Savolainen ha scritto:
This has been asked and answered to in the ardour
forum titled "How do
I ... ?" :)
See http://www.ardour.org/node/169
Well, I wanted to hear pro's very voice:) You know, that's another feeling:)
Byez!
Carotinho
___________________________________
Yahoo! Mail: gratis 1GB per i messaggi e allegati da 10MB
http://mail.yahoo.it
9:04 p.m.
New subject: [linux-audio-user] How to properly apply effects in Ardour
On Thursday 20 April 2006 15:51, Sampo Savolainen was like:
On Thu, 2006-04-20 at 01:13 +0200, Carotinho wrote:
I have to say I am deeply impressed with the new look ardour site. So
impressed I signed up!
--
cheers,
tim hall
http://glastonburymusic.org.uk/tim
Hi all!
I'd like to know, how would you do in a situation like this: I have to
put an effect on a track in Ardour, but only in a certain point, not
affecting the whole extension of the track. What do you do to obtain
this? Edit the track with an external software? Doubling the track?
Routing a track to a purposely-created bus, and muting it where it's not
needed? I suspect the later is the best way, am I right?
This has been asked and answered to in the ardour forum titled "How do
I ... ?" :)
See http://www.ardour.org/node/169 
19 Apr
19 Apr
9:01 p.m.
On Thu, Apr 20, 2006 at 03:33:49AM +0700, Patrick Shirkey wrote:
But it also seems strange that they haven't been
taken to task for
altering the GPL. That is definitely illegal AFAIK. Doesn't the BSD
license cover their needs?
No, the usual BSD license allows unlimited commercial usage,
as does the MIT license.
--
Paul Winkler
http://www.slinkp.com
20 Apr
20 Apr
12:37 p.m.
Hallo,
Lee Revell hat gesagt: // Lee Revell wrote:
Why? It's their software, they can choose any
license they want. They
just don't want to be ripped off by someone commercializing their
software and not paying them.
According to their words: "COMMERCIAL USE of the souce code, libraries
and applications is NOT ALLOWED without prior written permission by
the LinuxSampler authors" no professional musician is allowed to use
LinuxSampler except with a written permission.
Goodbye LinuxSampler, it was nice to meet you, end of story.
Ciao
--
Frank Barknecht _ ______footils.org_ __goto10.org__
1:03 p.m.
Frank Barknecht wrote:
According to their words: "COMMERCIAL USE of the
souce code, libraries
and applications is NOT ALLOWED without prior written permission by
the LinuxSampler authors" no professional musician is allowed to use
LinuxSampler except with a written permission.
Frank, where did you get this text ? It's not the text I quoted from the
LS README :
"The LinuxSampler library (liblinuxsampler) and its applications are
distributed under the terms of the GNU General Public License (see
COPYING file), but with the EXCEPTION that they may NOT be used in
COMMERCIAL software or hardware products without prior written
authorization by the authors."
This is from recent CVS sources.
Best,
dp
1:41 p.m.
On Thu, Apr 20, 2006 at 11:03:49AM -0400, Dave Phillips wrote:
Frank Barknecht wrote:
Yep, they're basically trying to mutate the GPL into the old Csound
license. There are no restrictions on selling music made with
LinuxSampler. There are restrictions on selling LinuxSampler itself.
Personally I don't get what all the fuss is about.
--
Paul Winkler
http://www.slinkp.com
According to their words: "COMMERCIAL USE of
the souce code, libraries
and applications is NOT ALLOWED without prior written permission by
the LinuxSampler authors" no professional musician is allowed to use
LinuxSampler except with a written permission.
Frank, where did you get this text ? It's not the text I quoted from the
LS README :
"The LinuxSampler library (liblinuxsampler) and its applications are
distributed under the terms of the GNU General Public License (see
COPYING file), but with the EXCEPTION that they may NOT be used in
COMMERCIAL software or hardware products without prior written
authorization by the authors."
This is from recent CVS sources. 
2:54 p.m.
On Thu, 20 Apr 2006 11:40:49 -0400
Paul Winkler <pw_lists(a)slinkp.com> wrote:
Yep, they're basically trying to mutate the GPL
into the old Csound
license. There are no restrictions on selling music made with
LinuxSampler. There are restrictions on selling LinuxSampler itself.
Personally I don't get what all the fuss is about.
Licenses are of great importance. The LS license doesn't look like a
real license to me, because of the often mentioned points (one of them
which i raised but never got any answer to is that prior to changing the
license of a GPL project every contributor has to be asked if it's
allright with them except for the case that they signed off their rights
to the LS devs (as happens with the linux kernel)).
So basically LS is in a legal nomansland at the moment. They should
clear this issue, and talk to an attorney.
Everytime you put a project under the GPL you have to think _before_ you
release the stuff. Sometimes there's no way back unless you are the lone
author and have the copyrights to the whole code. Usually you put your
stuff under the GPL though so that others can contribute and be sure
that the code stays GPL.
Regards,
Flo
--
Palimm Palimm!
http://tapas.affenbande.org
1:52 p.m.
Hallo,
Dave Phillips hat gesagt: // Dave Phillips wrote:
Frank Barknecht wrote:
Oh. I got the other version from:
http://www.linuxsampler.org/downloads.html
Ciao
--
Frank Barknecht _ ______footils.org_ __goto10.org__
According to their words: "COMMERCIAL USE of
the souce code, libraries
and applications is NOT ALLOWED without prior written permission by
the LinuxSampler authors" no professional musician is allowed to use
LinuxSampler except with a written permission.
Frank, where did you get this text ? It's not the text I quoted from the
LS README : 
2:09 p.m.
On Thursday 20 April 2006 11:03, Dave Phillips wrote:
Frank Barknecht wrote:
Its my understanding of the GPL that you CANNOT apply additional
restrictions and still call it "GPL".
I'd suggest they consult with an attorney before they write such
foolery.
According to their words: "COMMERCIAL USE of
the souce code,
libraries and applications is NOT ALLOWED without prior written
permission by the LinuxSampler authors" no professional musician is
allowed to use LinuxSampler except with a written permission.
Frank, where did you get this text ? It's not the text I quoted from
the LS README :
"The LinuxSampler library (liblinuxsampler) and its applications are
distributed under the terms of the GNU General Public License (see
COPYING file), but with the EXCEPTION that they may NOT be used in
COMMERCIAL software or hardware products without prior written
authorization by the authors." This is from recent CVS sources.
Best,
dp
--
Cheers, Gene
People having trouble with vz bouncing email to me should add the word
'online' between the 'verizon', and the dot which bypasses vz's
stupid bounce rules. I do use spamassassin too. :-)
Yahoo.com and AOL/TW attorneys please note, additions to the above
message by Gene Heskett are:
Copyright 2006 by Maurice Eugene Heskett, all rights reserved.
10:15 p.m.
Gene Heskett wrote:
On Thursday 20 April 2006 11:03, Dave Phillips wrote:
People, please calm down.
I gotta repeat my own understanding of this issue, but I think it all
boils down to this:
a) linuxsampler-0.3.3 is the last known public release; as is, its pure
GPL, everyone if free to fork it according to FSF legalese ;)
b) linuxsampler CVS HEAD (IOW, all source code in CVS since 0.3.3
release) is the one which The-Rather-Illegal-GPL-Exception applies;
thats actually intentional; if you're a distro packager, do NOT pick it!
being you debianese or not :) unless you get the explicit LS-devel
permission to do it, of course, as stated on the infamous exception.
Is that clear?
I'm sure that, when LS gets mature enough for next release, a new and
lean open-source license will come to light.
Cheers.
--
rncbc aka Rui Nuno Capela
rncbc(a)rncbc.org
Frank Barknecht wrote:
Its my understanding of the GPL that you CANNOT apply additional
restrictions and still call it "GPL".
I'd suggest they consult with an attorney before they write such
foolery.
According to their words: "COMMERCIAL USE of
the souce code,
libraries and applications is NOT ALLOWED without prior written
permission by the LinuxSampler authors" no professional musician is
allowed to use LinuxSampler except with a written permission.
Frank, where did you
get this text ? It's not the text I quoted from
the LS README :
"The LinuxSampler library (liblinuxsampler) and its applications are
distributed under the terms of the GNU General Public License (see
COPYING file), but with the EXCEPTION that they may NOT be used in
COMMERCIAL software or hardware products without prior written
authorization by the authors." This is from recent CVS sources.
Best,
dp
23 Apr
23 Apr
10:24 p.m.
On Fri, 2006-04-21 at 01:14 +0100, Rui Nuno Capela wrote:
Gene Heskett wrote:
This is not the first time I see something like this posted on the
lists, sigh:
--------
On Thursday 20 April 2006 11:03, Dave Phillips
wrote:
People, please calm down.
I gotta repeat my own understanding of this issue, but I think it all
boils down to this:
a) linuxsampler-0.3.3 is the last known public release; as is, its pure
GPL, everyone if free to fork it according to FSF legalese ;) Frank Barknecht wrote:
Its my understanding of the GPL that you CANNOT apply additional
restrictions and still call it "GPL".
I'd suggest they consult with an attorney before they write such
foolery.
> This is from recent CVS sources. According to their words: "COMMERCIAL USE of
the souce code,
libraries and applications is NOT ALLOWED without prior written
permission by the LinuxSampler authors" no professional musician is
allowed to use LinuxSampler except with a written permission.
Frank, where did you
get this text ? It's not the text I quoted from
the LS README :
"The LinuxSampler library (liblinuxsampler) and its applications are
distributed under the terms of the GNU General Public License (see
COPYING file), but with the EXCEPTION that they may NOT be used in
COMMERCIAL software or hardware products without prior written
authorization by the authors." tar
xvjf
/projects/planet/source/rpms/linuxsampler/linuxsampler-0.3.3.tar.bz2
cd linuxsampler-0.3.3
more README
LinuxSampler - modular, streaming capable sampler
by Benno Senoner (benno(a)gardena.net)
and Christian Schoenebeck (cuse(a)users.sourceforge.net)
This software is distributed under the GNU General Public License (see
COPYING file), and may not be used in commercial applications
without asking the authors for permission.
--------
so, AFAIK 0.3.3 is already not really GPL for the reasons already listed
in the thread.
Maybe I have the wrong tarball? (BTW, try to download 0.3.3 - let me
know how you manage to do that). If you go to the CVS site and browse
the 0.3.3 release branch you get the same thing in the README.
b) linuxsampler CVS HEAD (IOW, all source code in CVS
since 0.3.3
release) is the one which The-Rather-Illegal-GPL-Exception applies;
thats actually intentional; if you're a distro packager, do NOT pick it!
being you debianese or not :) unless you get the explicit LS-devel
permission to do it, of course, as stated on the infamous exception.
Is that clear?
Not really, I keep seeing the above referenced README in 0.3.3. So,
unless I'm missing something, please stop saying that this is only
happening in CVS.
-- Fernando
10:48 p.m.
On Sun, 2006-04-23 at 17:23 -0700, Fernando Lopez-Lezcano wrote:
On Fri, 2006-04-21 at 01:14 +0100, Rui Nuno Capela
wrote:
The above sentence ("This software...") is a self contradiction. It can
not be both "distributed under the GNU General Public License" and "may
not be used in commercial applications". There is no debate about it's
interpretation, because it does not make sense. The linuxsampler
authors must clarify and fix this sentence, it is not valid statement.
(I should maybe point out that if the non commercial exception is
intended, linux sampler is NOT open source software)
-DR-
Gene Heskett wrote:
I gotta repeat my own understanding of this issue, but I think it all
boils down to this:
a) linuxsampler-0.3.3 is the last known public release; as is, its pure
GPL, everyone if free to fork it according to FSF legalese ;)
This is not the first time I see something like this posted on the
lists, sigh:
--------
tar
xvjf
/projects/planet/source/rpms/linuxsampler/linuxsampler-0.3.3.tar.bz2
cd linuxsampler-0.3.3
more README
LinuxSampler - modular, streaming capable sampler
by Benno Senoner (benno(a)gardena.net)
and Christian Schoenebeck (cuse(a)users.sourceforge.net)
This software is distributed under the GNU General Public License (see
COPYING file), and may not be used in commercial applications
without asking the authors for permission.
--------
so, AFAIK 0.3.3 is already not really GPL for the reasons already listed
in the thread.
24 Apr
24 Apr
7:44 a.m.
Fernando Lopez-Lezcano wrote:
On Fri, 2006-04-21 at 01:14 +0100, Rui Nuno Capela
wrote:
Now you tell me :)
OK. I've done some homework now :) In fact, that infamous README
paragraph has been literally just like that since LS dawn (somewhere
around fall 2003). I'll repeat it here:
Old Linuxsampler README License, until 0.3.3 inclusive:
...
This software is distributed under the GNU General Public License
(see COPYING file), and may not be used in commercial applications
without asking the authors for permission.
...
That was is in fact loose and naive. But IANAL.
Then, almost after the 0.3.3 release, someone relative to debian and
GPL-purism raised the question, leading to all this fuss, and that
paragrah was promptly changed to the EXCEPTIONal one, as is today in
CVS. It is no better, I believe, but it makes a stronger position.
Current Linuxsampler README License, as is on CVS HEAD today:
...
License
-------
The LinuxSampler library (liblinuxsampler) and its applications are
distributed under the terms of the GNU General Public License (see
COPYING file), but with the EXCEPTION that they may NOT be used in
COMMERCIAL software or hardware products without prior written
authorization by the authors.
...
I'll give you my apologies, as my prior allegations have no defense at
the face of the letter. Anyway, the understanding I've wrote is the one
to stick with, as I believe is the same as the LS developers'
disposition, me included:)
Bye now.
--
rncbc aka Rui Nuno Capela
rncbc(a)rncbc.org
People, please calm down.
I gotta repeat my own understanding of this issue, but I think it all
boils down to this:
a) linuxsampler-0.3.3 is the last known public release; as is, its pure
GPL, everyone if free to fork it according to FSF legalese ;)
This is not the first time I see something like this posted on the
lists, sigh:
--------
tar
xvjf
/projects/planet/source/rpms/linuxsampler/linuxsampler-0.3.3.tar.bz2
cd linuxsampler-0.3.3
more README
LinuxSampler - modular, streaming capable sampler
by Benno Senoner (benno(a)gardena.net)
and Christian Schoenebeck (cuse(a)users.sourceforge.net)
This software is distributed under the GNU General Public License (see
COPYING file), and may not be used in commercial applications
without asking the authors for permission.
--------
so, AFAIK 0.3.3 is already not really GPL for the reasons already listed
in the thread.
Maybe I have the wrong tarball? (BTW, try to download 0.3.3 - let me
know how you manage to do that). If you go to the CVS site and browse
the 0.3.3 release branch you get the same thing in the README.
b) linuxsampler CVS HEAD (IOW, all source code in
CVS since 0.3.3
release) is the one which The-Rather-Illegal-GPL-Exception applies;
thats actually intentional; if you're a distro packager, do NOT pick it!
being you debianese or not :) unless you get the explicit LS-devel
permission to do it, of course, as stated on the infamous exception.
Is that clear?
Not really, I keep seeing the above referenced README in 0.3.3. So,
unless I'm missing something, please stop saying that this is only
happening in CVS.
6790
days inactive
6795
days old
linux-audio-user@lists.linuxaudio.org
27 comments
18 participants
participants (18)
-
Asbjørn Sæbø -
Brett McCoy -
Carotinho -
Dave Phillips -
Dave Robillard -
Fernando Lopez-Lezcano -
Florian Schmidt -
Frank Barknecht -
Gene Heskett -
Juhana Sadeharju -
Lee Revell -
Nick Copeland -
Patrick Shirkey -
Paul Davis -
Paul Winkler -
Rui Nuno Capela -
Sampo Savolainen -
tim hall