On 10/17/07, Arnold Krille <arnold(a)arnoldarts.de> wrote: I believe the point is that all of the latest versions, for at least 2 years now, are not GPL. The license was modified. I went back to using GigaStudio. It works *far* better than LS, or at least LS a year ago. - Mark

On Wed, October 17, 2007 16:11, Mark Constable wrote: hope no more. the engine to play gig files is linuxsampler, yes the one piece with the infamous gpl exception. gigedit is essentially a gui front-end to libgig, which are both pure-gpl, and its sole purpose is to edit gig files. afaict the only other option available to play gigs is gigastudio, but here there's no point in using gigedit to edit your files as gigastudio does it all. you choose what is better for you ;) cheers. -- rncbc aka Rui Nuno Capela rncbc(a)rncbc.org

On Wed, 2007-10-17 at 19:25 +0200, Arnold Krille wrote: I'm not a lawyer either. Section 10 of GPL2 includes: "You may not impose any further restrictions on the exercise of the rights granted or affirmed under this License." So, you can't add restrictions (in this case commercial use of the code). If you want to add restrictions then you can't use the GPL. At least that's my reading. -- Fernando

On Wed, 2007-10-17 at 19:33 +0100, Rui Nuno Capela wrote: Yep, the question keeps popping up in the lists, long threads ensue, and inevitably somebody says it is ok to to it. Probably linuxsampler should be relicensed to another license that accepts extra restrictions. There must be something in the big zoo of licenses out there that would fit, but most probably it would not be an fsf approved license. -- Fernando

If memory serves, you cannot change the GPL and still call it the GPL as the License itself is copyrighted. However the rest of Paul's post is completely dead on. Seablade On 10/17/07, Paul Davis <paul(a)linuxaudiosystems.com> wrote:

I am very grateful to the developers for allowing me to use their reliable & stable software. LS gives me NO issues at all. I use it every day. It cost me nothing and I am licensed to legally to use it. That makes it as free as possible in every meaningful sense. Thank-you Christian,Andreas,Rui and everyone else involved in LS. Without you I couldn't use my GigaPiano. frankly I quite understand your amendment.I have read of no other restriction than you want your software to remain free. best, g.

On Thursday 18 October 2007 09:15:52 Mark Constable wrote: then don't. g.

On Wed, 2007-10-17 at 19:25 +0200, Arnold Krille wrote: 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

On Wed, 2007-10-17 at 21:07 +0200, Arnold Krille wrote: if i write library foo and app bar, i can do whatever the hell i want with them, no matter how i license them to you. the GPL is a license issued by copyright holders to others to allow them to make copies under certain conditions. it is not a self-imposed restriction by copyright holders on their own inherent rights to do whatever they want with their work. since christian is one of the authors of LS and the author or one of the authors of gigedit, i suspect that your observation doesn't matter much, but that would depend on the details of the copyright holding arrangement.

On Wed, 2007-10-17 at 15:29 -0400, Paul Davis wrote: Taking a quick look with ldd on my F7 + CCRMA system, LinuxSampler links with code under the following licences (excluding libgig): LGPL and GPL + Runtime Exception (GCC stuff), so no GPL problems here. But, I am not sure that your observation that because the copyright holders of LS and libgig are the same they can distribute is completely correct. As you note the copyright holder can distribute the software under whatever terms they choose, but I see two problems with the LS/libgig situation: 1) No one else can distribute LS binaries under its current licence because they would be in breach of the GPL licence on libgig. 2) I have doubts about whether a copyright holder can distribute binaries licenced under the GPL that are in breach of the GPL. the penalty for breaching the GPL is that the licence is removed and the software cannot be distributed. I am not even an amateur lawyer so this is getting way beyond me! It would be nice to have it settled once and for all either LS is re-licenced under a standard GPL compatible FOSS licence, or someone asks the FSF for an opinion. The latter might be the nuclear option - the FSF opinion might cause the LS developers to stop distributing the software and walk away :-( Keith.

On Wed, 2007-10-17 at 22:40 +0200, Lars Luthman wrote: In most countries (certainly the UK) a non-copyright holder starts from a position of zero rights. The only way I can access a copyright item is by a licence from the copyright holder that grants me rights. In the case of LS/libgig I am being granted two sets of (possibly) incompatible rights by two different licences from the same copyright holder. I am being licenced use of LS under the terms of the GPL V2 + a restriction on redistribution as a commercial product. I am also being licenced the use of libgig under a pure GPL V2 licence. The problem is that the pure GPL V2 libgig "virally infects" LS and the result is a (possible) breach of the terms of the GPL V2, and the GPL V2 states that if you breach the licence all rights granted under it are withdrawn. So at this point I have no licence to use libgig and I am in breach of copyright. The only way out is that the copyright holders of LS and libgig are one and the same and it is unlikely that they would seek legal redress against me for violating their copyright in this manner, nor are they likely to sue themselves :-) I still maintain that the situation does need cleared up once and for all, preferably in a manner in which LS can be classed as Free Software suitable for inclusion in distributions such as Fedora and Debian. Having thought about it some more the simplest solution would be to re-licence libgig under the LGPL with no extra restrictions. This wouldn't solve the problem of getting it into distributions, but it would allow places like Planet CCRMA to continue to make packages available. By "cause" I did not mean force or require. I meant that there is a risk that all this talk about licences and LS means that the LS developers get fed up and stop developing or change to a much more restrictive licence under their on volition. No more LS development would be the worst possible outcome - it is an excellent piece of software. All I meant was the FSF is the body with the most experience of the GPL and enforcing it so their opinion would count for a lot more than mine, or most others outside a court. They also have proper lawyers and legal advice, unlike most of us on this list. Anyway, I once promised myself that I would never get involved in one of these licence debates and now I have :-( I'm off to do something more interesting instead - perhaps I'll make music with these excellent tools :-) Keith.

On 10/17/07, Arnold Krille <arnold(a)arnoldarts.de> wrote: Their change to GPL stated that you needed to ask for permission to make a commercial application. I don't think it applies, in general, to individuals using LS. I suspect that had the authors wanted permission then they probably asked themselves and got an OK. ;-) It depends deeply on what is meant by 'contributed'. As someone who doesn't program I have always tried to make a strong contribution to the programs I Was using most, primarily by helping with debugging and giving the best feedback I could. In the case of LS I spent countless hours, easily 300-400, going through and comparing the operation of LS to GSt for hundreds of gig file, finding places where the program or its file handling needed to be improved, finding bugs in it's handling of numerous gig file parameters, midi implementation, incorrect voicing (both pitch and volume), CPU usage, etc. Unfortunately that sort of contribution is not valued by all project leaders and was not valued by that group. After all that work I was not asked for any permission to use my information and the work derived from it in a different license. I contributed under GPL and then had my information used in ways I had not contemplated. The change was made by those who had CVS write access and that was the end of the story. Unfortunately that's the way it goes because I didn't contribute with a written agreement by the development team not to change the license. My mistake. When this happened I stopped using the program and disassociated myself from the group. I've not used LS, QS, libgig or any of the rest of it since. I understand item a). I don't understand item b) but no need to discuss. GSt, for me, is no different than any other external synth in terms of latency - MIDI or audio. I've always hoped that someone not associated with the project might have kept a pre-license-change version of the code, when it was still GPL. Had they done that then I would happily join a new group and help out as I did before, with the caveat that I be included in authors. ;-) Unfortunately I've not run across anyone that did keep the old code and my understanding is that all pre-license-change versions were removed from CVS thus stopping folks interested in this sort of project from going back and grabbing it after the fact. Like Fernando said, every time this subject comes up it does generate a new, long thread! Sorry! Cheers, Mark