1 May
2008
1 May
'08
9:59 p.m.
To whomever it might concern,
I was moving 1394 drives around from machine to machine today and
ran across an old (March, 2005) CVS download of the LinuxSampler code
that I apparently checked out. I took a look at the COPYING file in
each of the main directories (libgig, liblscp, linuxsampler &
qsampler) and they do not (apparently) have any license modifications
for 'commercial' products although I didn't read in any depth.
Should anyone out there want to work SERIOUSLY with this code then
please feel free to get in touch with me to talk about it. If you are
a casual user of LinuxSampler then just stick with the normal, newer
and probably far more advanced version that the LinuxSampler team
provides. The purpose of this fork is a commitment to GPL.
My only requirements in providing this code are:
1) Some sort of ongoing SourceForge or other publicly available
location for the project needs to be created and maintained by a small
group of project managers committed to the project. Responsibilities
and duties to be agreed upon.
2) The license for this fork must remain completely GPL forever.
Should someone want to make a commercial product from this fork then
the license should allow them to at least try. I expect they will run
into the same issues, whatever they were, that the original
LinuxSampler team had, but I do not want the license for this code to
prohibit them from trying and at least we'll get the issues out on the
table publicly.
3) An agreement to manage a transfer of responsibilities to a new
program manager should the need arise.
Again, I do NOT guarantee that this fork is completely GPL. I
scanned the document and compared it to the language on the
LinuxSampler web site concerning the license change. It does not seem
that that language is included in this file so I *think* it's clean.
We will review that in depth if someone is serious about moving
forward.
Cheers,
Mark
1 May
1 May
10:33 p.m.
attempting to subvert the intentions of the authors (who are present on this
list) is deplorable.
10:57 p.m.
On Thursday 01 May 2008 20:33:55 bradley newton haug wrote:
attempting to subvert the intentions of the authors
(who are present on
this list) is deplorable.
Certainly not. If they chose to use the GPL at one time, further developing a
GPL version from the last fully GPL version is perfectly proper. It is one of
the main reasons to USE GPL softwqre in the first place. The right to fork is
important.
I could say more to the other angle, but will refrain at this point.
all the best,
drew
11:01 p.m.
bradley newton haug wrote:
attempting to subvert the intentions of the authors
(who are present
on this list) is deplorable.
He isn't subverting anything. Open source code
licensed under the GPL
guarantees Mark's (and your) freedom to work with the code as either of
you see fit.
The GPL does not address the intentions of the authors. Specifically it
address the rights of users, of which Mark is one. He is entitled to do
what he likes with the source code, so long as he abides by the letter
of its license, as are we all.
You know, for all the bullcrap that's been spewed on this matter, has
anyone ever submitted the case to the FSF for their judgment on it ? It
seems to me that their opinion would seal the issue once and for all.
Best,
dp
11:29 p.m.
On Thu, May 1, 2008 at 6:01 PM, Dave Phillips <dlphillips(a)woh.rr.com> wrote:
bradley newton haug wrote:
Thanks Dave. I applaud everyone for their comments on this subject.
Personally I feel that using GPL code for any reason allowed within
GPL is certainly not a deplorable action. We do it every day with lots
of GPL programs. At the time this package of code was written it is my
understanding that this was a GPL project. That what the license seems
to say and that's all I work on.
I am still the only non-developer I know of who is specifically listed
on the LS site as a contributor. Over the years I've certainly been
one of the 'spew-iees' Dave is speaking of, fairly enough, because I
put in huge amounts of efforts on the project only to have the rug
pulled out from underneath me with no discussion. The GPL doesn't
protect my 'interests' as a tester/contributor bucause my name isn't
listed in the code header. In fact the license was changed and I
continued working on the project because the developers didn't even
announce they'd made the change.
I'm not personally sure what the FSF could really do for us on this
subject but I'd be interested in knowing. Whatever the reasons were
that the authors changed the license they have refused to talk about
them in public. I don't think that taking the code non-GPL is really
'wrong', per se, but possibly the FSF would tell them they have to use
a non-GPL license that they write instead of stealing the GPL and
modifying it? (Heck, I think the idea of the GPL itself was that you
don't change it, right? If anyone can change it then the idea of
feeding code back into the program falls apart/)
Anyway, GPL programs fork all the time. I'm not trying to 'subvert'
anything. The 'story' was that they were 'contacted' by someone and
decide to go that direction for reasons never made public. That's
their business. I *think* people have asked a few times over the last
few years if anyone had some GPL code. I found it today. I'll provide
it as long as the stated intention is for use in a GPL project. I
*think* that's for the good of people using GPL software. Nothing
more.
Cheers,
Mark
attempting to subvert the intentions of the
authors (who are present
on this list) is deplorable.
He isn't subverting anything. Open source code
licensed under the GPL
guarantees Mark's (and your) freedom to work with the code as either of
you see fit.
The GPL does not address the intentions of the authors. Specifically it
address the rights of users, of which Mark is one. He is entitled to do
what he likes with the source code, so long as he abides by the letter
of its license, as are we all.
You know, for all the bullcrap that's been spewed on this matter, has
anyone ever submitted the case to the FSF for their judgment on it ? It
seems to me that their opinion would seal the issue once and for all.
Best,
dp
2 May
2 May
1:14 a.m.
On Thursday 01 May 2008 21:29:22 Mark Knecht wrote:
On Thu, May 1, 2008 at 6:01 PM, Dave Phillips
<dlphillips(a)woh.rr.com> wrote:
"GNU GENERAL PUBLIC LICENSE
Version 2, June 1991
Copyright (C) 1989, 1991 Free Software Foundation, Inc.,
51 Franklin Street, Fifth Floor, Boston, MA 02110-1301 USA
Everyone is permitted to copy and distribute verbatim copies
of this license document, but changing it is not allowed."
*** changing it is not allowed ***
Has it been changed?
I am not sure if the GPLhas any entire agreement intent such that you can't
have a meta license which modifies the GPL itself rather than a dual license
play.
bradley newton haug wrote:
Thanks Dave. I applaud everyone for their comments on this subject.
Personally I feel that using GPL code for any reason allowed within
GPL is certainly not a deplorable action. We do it every day with lots
of GPL programs. At the time this package of code was written it is my
understanding that this was a GPL project. That what the license seems
to say and that's all I work on.
I am still the only non-developer I know of who is specifically listed
on the LS site as a contributor. Over the years I've certainly been
one of the 'spew-iees' Dave is speaking of, fairly enough, because I
put in huge amounts of efforts on the project only to have the rug
pulled out from underneath me with no discussion. The GPL doesn't
protect my 'interests' as a tester/contributor bucause my name isn't
listed in the code header. In fact the license was changed and I
continued working on the project because the developers didn't even
announce they'd made the change.
I'm not personally sure what the FSF could really do for us on this
subject but I'd be interested in knowing. Whatever the reasons were
that the authors changed the license they have refused to talk about
them in public. I don't think that taking the code non-GPL is really
'wrong', per se, but possibly the FSF would tell them they have to use
a non-GPL license that they write instead of stealing the GPL and
modifying it? (Heck, I think the idea of the GPL itself was that you
don't change it, right? If anyone can change it then the idea of
feeding code back into the program falls apart/) attempting to subvert the intentions of the
authors (who are present
on this list) is deplorable.
He isn't subverting anything. Open source code licensed under the GPL
guarantees Mark's (and your) freedom to work with the code as either of
you see fit.
The GPL does not address the intentions of the authors. Specifically it
address the rights of users, of which Mark is one. He is entitled to do
what he likes with the source code, so long as he abides by the letter
of its license, as are we all.
You know, for all the bullcrap that's been spewed on this matter, has
anyone ever submitted the case to the FSF for their judgment on it ? It
seems to me that their opinion would seal the issue once and for all.
Best,
dp
Anyway, GPL programs fork all the time. I'm not trying to 'subvert'
anything. The 'story' was that they were 'contacted' by someone and
decide to go that direction for reasons never made public. That's
their business. I *think* people have asked a few times over the last
few years if anyone had some GPL code. I found it today. I'll provide
it as long as the stated intention is for use in a GPL project. I
*think* that's for the good of people using GPL software. Nothing
more.
Cheers,
Mark
all the best,
drew
6:59 p.m.
"Mark Knecht" <markknecht(a)gmail.com> writes:
The GPL doesn't protect my 'interests' as
a tester/contributor
bucause my name isn't listed in the code header.
This is wrong. If you got contributions to the code base you are also
a copyright holder. The law protects you here. This means they cannot
change the license of the particular files you contributed to, without
your consent or without removing your contributions. This is protected
by law.
I'm not personally sure what the FSF could really
do for us on this
subject but I'd be interested in knowing.
It's not up to the FSF, as long as they don't hold the copyright to
the work.
--
Esben Stien is b0ef@e s a
http://www. s t n m
irc://irc. b - i . e/%23contact
sip:b0ef@ e e
jid:b0ef@ n n
7:26 p.m.
On Fri, May 2, 2008 at 3:52 PM, Esben Stien <b0ef(a)esben-stien.name> wrote:
"Mark Knecht" <markknecht(a)gmail.com>
writes:
Well, the problem is that as a tester/contributor my contributions to
the project is direct but to the code is indirect. I never wrote a
line of code in LS and don't want anyone to think I did. However I
would strongly suggest that LS wouldn't have made nearly the progress
is did make in the time it did without all the work I did looking for
inconsistencies in how GigaStudio handled a specific gig file vs how
LS did. My contribution was to push them to make a product that
professional users of GSt would consider using. However, I wrote no
code and my name appears nowhere in any file, as is probably
appropriate.
The GPL doesn't protect my
'interests' as a tester/contributor
bucause my name isn't listed in the code header.
This is wrong. If you got contributions to the code base you are also
a copyright holder. The law protects you here. This means they cannot
change the license of the particular files you contributed to, without
your consent or without removing your contributions. This is protected
by law.
I'm not personally sure what the FSF could
really do for us on this
subject but I'd be interested in knowing.
It's not up to the FSF, as long as they don't hold the copyright to
the work.
--
Esben Stien is b0ef@e s a
http://www. s t n m
irc://irc. b - i . e/%23contact
sip:b0ef@ e e
jid:b0ef@ n n
_______________________________________________
Linux-audio-user mailing list
Linux-audio-user(a)lists.linuxaudio.org
http://lists.linuxaudio.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-audio-user
12 May
12 May
8:10 a.m.
Greetings,
As a brief follow-up to this discussion: I've heard nothing from the
FSF, so either they're 1) too busy to get to my request at this time, or
2) they don't care about it. Hopefully #1 is the correct assumption, but
for now, there's no news.
Best,
dp
3:09 p.m.
Hi Dave,
When there's a problem, I always contact directly with Richard Stallman and
he answered all my questions quickly.
On Mon, May 12, 2008 at 1:10 PM, Dave Phillips <dlphillips(a)woh.rr.com>
wrote:
Greetings,
As a brief follow-up to this discussion: I've heard nothing from the
FSF, so either they're 1) too busy to get to my request at this time, or
2) they don't care about it. Hopefully #1 is the correct assumption, but
for now, there's no news.
Best,
dp
_______________________________________________
Linux-audio-user mailing list
Linux-audio-user(a)lists.linuxaudio.org
http://lists.linuxaudio.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-audio-user
--
Arda EDEN
Cumhuriyet University
Faculty of Fine Arts
Department of Music Technology
Sivas/TURKEY
2 May
2 May
8:43 a.m.
Dave Phillips wrote:
...for all the bullcrap that's been spewed on this
matter...
Apologies for this rather aggressive wording. I meant only that we might
replace speculation by an assessment from what might be termed *the*
standards body where the GPL is concerned. However, subsequent posters
have continued speculating. I know it's more fun, but it doesn't define
and/or conclude the matter.
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.
Best,
dp
9:39 a.m.
Dave Phillips wrote:
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.
Best,
dp
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
1 May
1 May
11:57 p.m.
On Thursday 01 May 2008 19:59, Mark Knecht wrote:
Again, I do NOT guarantee that this fork is
completely GPL.
The LS people are now claiming in their FAQ that the non-commercial
restriction was always there, and even that "that commercial
exception was even already in Benno Senoner's proof of concept code
called "EVO", which LinuxSampler was based on".
I don't know when that claim went up, but it was sometime after August
2007 and before 5 minutes ago (thank you, archive.org.) Shades of
SCO. "Who cares what you downloaded? This is what we MEANT to say
in our license..."
We can claim they purged the old history out of their CVS and they can
claim we fabricated a GPL-compliant version of their source tree.
All that means is when they try to sue Lionstracs or whoever
eventually gets their manties in a bunch, they won't have any
FSF-related legal resources at their disposal (oddly enough, the
defendant very well might), they'll probably lose due to this murky
situation, and the GPL will appear weaker in the press despite not
actually being at issue.
Before you respond to that troll from earlier this evening, by the
way, search your archives.
Rob
2 May
2 May
1:16 a.m.
On Thu, May 1, 2008 at 7:59 PM, Mark Knecht <markknecht(a)gmail.com> wrote:
My only requirements in providing this code are:
1) Some sort of ongoing SourceForge or other publicly available
location for the project needs to be created and maintained by a small
group of project managers committed to the project. Responsibilities
and duties to be agreed upon.
So which clause of the license gives you the right to distribute with
additional requirements?
2) The license for this fork must remain completely
GPL forever.
Should someone want to make a commercial product from this fork then
the license should allow them to at least try. I expect they will run
into the same issues, whatever they were, that the original
LinuxSampler team had, but I do not want the license for this code to
prohibit them from trying and at least we'll get the issues out on the
table publicly.
If you are not the copyright holder, how can you require that the
license not be changed?
Shoudl you decide to redistribute this code, I would like a copy,
subject only to the terms under which it is licensed.
Thanks,
Paul
1:56 a.m.
On Thu, May 1, 2008 at 8:16 PM, Paul Coccoli <pcoccoli(a)gmail.com> wrote:
Well, I cannot require it legally. However I won't give anything out
without the recipient
On Thu, May 1, 2008 at 7:59 PM, Mark Knecht
<markknecht(a)gmail.com> wrote:
None, but I have no responsibility to distribute it either. If someone
convinces me that they intend to keep the project GPL, accept a copy
fro me, and then they don't keep it as a GPL project then shame on
them but I probably wouldn't have any rights to enforce the agreement
myself. Maybe the FSF would. I don't know. That's for lawyers.
My only requirements in providing this code
are:
1) Some sort of ongoing SourceForge or other publicly available
location for the project needs to be created and maintained by a small
group of project managers committed to the project. Responsibilities
and duties to be agreed upon.
So which clause of the license gives you the right to distribute with
additional requirements?
2) The license for this fork must remain
completely GPL forever.
Should someone want to make a commercial product from this fork then
the license should allow them to at least try. I expect they will run
into the same issues, whatever they were, that the original
LinuxSampler team had, but I do not want the license for this code to
prohibit them from trying and at least we'll get the issues out on the
table publicly.
If you are not the copyright holder, how can you require that the
license not be changed?
Shoudl you decide to redistribute this code, I would like a copy,
subject only to the terms under which it is licensed.
Those are the only terms I would distribute it. I'm not changing
ANYTHING in the license or indeed anything in ANY file. I have a copy,
properly obtained through the LS CVS server at a time when the project
seemed to claim GPL compliance. Every file seems to claim it's GPL to
be used as GPL. I don't claim there isn't something down deeper. There
may be. If I get time I might go looking for info inside the files to
argue against it's GPL heritage but for now it looks like pretty much
every other Open Source project I've looked at.
Again, I'm only saying I have a copy and could possibly be convinced
to provide it to others who are serious about making forward progress.
I REALLY don't think the casual user should use this code. At the time
I go this the project wasn't all that stable and lacked really
important features, some of which I think have been added in the
non-commercial, maybe GPL version.
Cheers,
Mark
2:29 a.m.
On Thu, May 1, 2008 at 10:56 PM, Mark Knecht <markknecht(a)gmail.com> wrote:
Well, I cannot require it legally. However I won't give anything out
without the recipient
Mark can't, but the original copyright holders could, since the GPL is the
only license granting rights to this version of their code.
--
joq
On Thu, May 1, 2008 at 8:16 PM, Paul Coccoli
<pcoccoli(a)gmail.com> wrote:
Mark is not really adding any requirements. The GPL gives him the
right to redistribute. That same license requires anyone modifying
and redistributing that copy to also use the GPL.
Only the original authors have the right to distribute copies under
any other license.
If you modify anything, you can add your own copyright to theirs
and insist that anyone using those modifications also follow the
GPL rules. But, you must retain the original authors' copyright
notices, and will never have the option to change that license
without their permission.
On Thu, May 1, 2008 at 7:59 PM, Mark Knecht
<markknecht(a)gmail.com> wrote:
None, but I have no responsibility to distribute it either. If someone
convinces me that they intend to keep the project GPL, accept a copy
fro me, and then they don't keep it as a GPL project then shame on
them but I probably wouldn't have any rights to enforce the agreement
myself. Maybe the FSF would. I don't know. That's for lawyers. My only requirements in providing this code
are:
1) Some sort of ongoing SourceForge or other publicly available
location for the project needs to be created and maintained by a small
group of project managers committed to the project. Responsibilities
and duties to be agreed upon.
So which clause of the license gives you the right to distribute with
additional requirements?
2) The license for this fork must remain completely
GPL forever.
Should someone want to make a commercial product from this fork then
the license should allow them to at least try. I expect they will run
into the same issues, whatever they were, that the original
LinuxSampler team had, but I do not want the license for this code to
prohibit them from trying and at least we'll get the issues out on the
table publicly.
If you are not the copyright holder, how can you require that the
license not be changed? 
2:58 a.m.
On Thu, 2008-05-01 at 20:56 -0700, Mark Knecht wrote:
On Thu, May 1, 2008 at 8:16 PM, Paul Coccoli
<pcoccoli(a)gmail.com> wrote:
Well, I cannot require it legally. However I won't give anything out
without the recipient
Hi Mark,
I've seen your posts on several mailing lists over the years and I'd
just like to say that I've always found them to be intelligent and
reasonable. I'm sorry that there always seem to be people who like
confrontation instead of trying to move forward on any given issue.
The LinuxSampler license is an example of someone trying to break that
which holds the linux community together, which is the GPL. I don't feel
that they are bad or wrong, and they have a right to make LinuxSampler
completely commercial should they care to do so, but I must say that I
need and use this program and it's been quite a headache for certain
distributions because of the licensing. This is just a note of
encouragement for you and a request to others; please let's just make
everything in linux work.
Respectfully,
Arthur
On Thu, May 1, 2008 at 7:59 PM, Mark Knecht
<markknecht(a)gmail.com> wrote:
None, but I have no responsibility to distribute it either. If someone
convinces me that they intend to keep the project GPL, accept a copy
fro me, and then they don't keep it as a GPL project then shame on
them but I probably wouldn't have any rights to enforce the agreement
myself. Maybe the FSF would. I don't know. That's for lawyers.
My only requirements in providing this code
are:
1) Some sort of ongoing SourceForge or other publicly available
location for the project needs to be created and maintained by a small
group of project managers committed to the project. Responsibilities
and duties to be agreed upon.
So which clause of the license gives you the right to distribute with
additional requirements?
2) The license for this fork must remain
completely GPL forever.
Should someone want to make a commercial product from this fork then
the license should allow them to at least try. I expect they will run
into the same issues, whatever they were, that the original
LinuxSampler team had, but I do not want the license for this code to
prohibit them from trying and at least we'll get the issues out on the
table publicly.
If you are not the copyright holder, how can you require that the
license not be changed?
Shoudl you decide to redistribute this code, I would like a copy,
subject only to the terms under which it is licensed.
Those are the only terms I would distribute it. I'm not changing
ANYTHING in the license or indeed anything in ANY file. I have a copy,
properly obtained through the LS CVS server at a time when the project
seemed to claim GPL compliance. Every file seems to claim it's GPL to
be used as GPL. I don't claim there isn't something down deeper. There
may be. If I get time I might go looking for info inside the files to
argue against it's GPL heritage but for now it looks like pretty much
every other Open Source project I've looked at.
Again, I'm only saying I have a copy and could possibly be convinced
to provide it to others who are serious about making forward progress.
I REALLY don't think the casual user should use this code. At the time
I go this the project wasn't all that stable and lacked really
important features, some of which I think have been added in the
non-commercial, maybe GPL version.
Cheers,
Mark
10:37 a.m.
On Thu, May 1, 2008 at 9:58 PM, Arthur <arthura(a)cox.net> wrote:
Hi Mark,
I've seen your posts on several mailing lists over the years and I'd
just like to say that I've always found them to be intelligent and
reasonable. I'm sorry that there always seem to be people who like
confrontation instead of trying to move forward on any given issue.
The LinuxSampler license is an example of someone trying to break that
which holds the linux community together, which is the GPL. I don't feel
that they are bad or wrong, and they have a right to make LinuxSampler
completely commercial should they care to do so, but I must say that I
need and use this program and it's been quite a headache for certain
distributions because of the licensing. This is just a note of
encouragement for you and a request to others; please let's just make
everything in linux work.
Respectfully,
Arthur
Arthur,
Thank you for your kind words. I appreciate them deeply.
Cheers,
Mark
6:54 p.m.
"Mark Knecht" <markknecht(a)gmail.com> writes:
Should anyone out there want to work SERIOUSLY with
this code then
please feel free to get in touch with me
Please upload this to your nearest public server. There are probably
several people who will want to work on this, now and in the future.
The license for this fork must remain completely GPL
forever.
Nobody has ever the possibility to change the license for this code
you possess, not even the original authors.
--
Esben Stien is b0ef@e s a
http://www. s t n m
irc://irc. b - i . e/%23contact
sip:b0ef@ e e
jid:b0ef@ n n
6042
days inactive
6053
days old
linux-audio-user@lists.linuxaudio.org
20 comments
11 participants
participants (11)
-
Arda Eden -
Arthur -
bradley newton haug -
Dave Phillips -
drew Roberts -
Esben Stien -
Jack O'Quin -
Ken Restivo -
Mark Knecht -
Paul Coccoli -
Rob