On Sun, 2006-07-02 at 10:28 -0700, Fernando Lopez-Lezcano wrote: > On Sat, 2006-07-01 at 15:51 -0400, Dave Robillard wrote: > > On Sat, 2006-07-01 at 20:33 +0100, Bob Ham wrote: > > > On Sat, 2006-07-01 at 23:53 +0700, Patrick Shirkey wrote: > > > > Dave Robillard wrote: > > > > > On Sat, 2006-07-01 at 17:43 +0200, Luis Garrido wrote: > > > > >>> LinuxSampler is not free software or open source software. > > > > >>> > > > > >> (sigh, must we, really?) > > > > >> > > > > >> It depends on who you choose to side with. > > > > > > > > It's just using a modified GPL License which isn't clearly labelled as > > > > such. > > > > > > According to this URL > > > > > > http://cvs.linuxsampler.org/cgi-bin/viewcvs.cgi/linuxsampler/src/Sampler.cpp?rev=1.28&content-type=text/vnd.viewcvs-markup > > > > > > I have permission to use that particular file under the GPL, or (at my > > > option) any later version. Looking through a few other files and I see > > > I have the same permissions for those. Seems to be open source *and* > > > free software *and* released under the GPL *and* free-as-in-beer. > > > > > > *shrug* > > > > Definitely, at the end of the day there is no way in hell their > > "exception" would hold up in court, since they basically just mention it > > in passing on the web page. > > Nope, it is (or at least was the last time I checked) mentioned in the, > I think, README file in the tarballs, up to and including 0.3.3.
So I exxaggerated. :) But like Bob said, the above link points to a file that clearly says right in it that it's licensed under the GPL (v2 or later). There's a similar link for every other file in LS, provided by the LS people themselves. So, if you want a fully GPLed version of CVS LS, just go through and download every file with those links and you've got it. -DR-