On Tue, 2006-07-04 at 09:32 +0100, Rui Nuno Capela wrote: > On Mon, July 3, 2006 22:55, Dave Robillard wrote: > > On Mon, 2006-07-03 at 08:33 -0400, Paul Davis wrote: > > > >> On Mon, 2006-07-03 at 02:26 +0700, Patrick Shirkey wrote: > >> > >>> If they really want to get people to give money then they should just > >>> make it so that you have to pay or contribute code/time for a while > >>> to get access to the newest downloads from their site. Keep the stable > >>> version far enough behind the development version that people will > >>> pay to get the newest code base. > >> > >> its really rather amusing to see people speculating on what the > >> developers of LS could or could not do, when the actual relevant > >> "encounter" with "commercial interests" has *already* happened. it did > >> not go well. it can be tempting to imagine that we understand the > >> motivations of commercial organizations and can therefore offer them > >> appropriate carrots. don't be so confident of this. both the LS > >> developers and myself are under the terms of an NDA, so it is not > >> possible to discuss with any relevant detail precisely what happened. > >> but it was nasty, it was unpleasant and as i've said before, it would > >> be better for people to not make so many assumptions about their ability > >> to guess at what might or might happen when a commercial company shows > >> interest in a tool like LS. > > > > Everyone can make assumptions about what they can or can't do until the > > cows come home, but it's irrelevant. The point it the license needs > > clarification. > > > > The disclaimer in the README is along the lines of what they intend to > > say (judging by the previously pasted quotes). The disclaimer on the > > webpage clearly makes it illegal to use LS on a CD you intend to sell, or > > in public concerts you sell tickets to (a goal that is specifically > > mentioned on the About page I might add), so if that isn't the intention > > it should be fixed. There is no disclaimer on the source files at all, so > > those are pure GPL with no commercial restrictions whatsoever. > > > > What IS the license to LinuxSampler? Who knows. They certainly havn't > > told us. > > > > We already know that the LS license is currently flawed. As Christian > wrote explicitly, even thought the README file still has the infamous > exception wording, *ALL* public releases of LinuxSampler until and > including 0.3.3 *ARE* plain GPL. That last public release was more than > one year ago. Since then, LinuxSampler code in CVS has changed in many > pervasive ways, and AFAICT for the better, performance and feature-wise.
I think you're missing the point. Current CVS LS *IS* effectively GPLed. If a company wanted to use recent CVS LS in a commercial product right now, and did, there's no way you'd be able to do anything about it. There's a bunch of files in CVS that say right in them they're GPLed, and they point to a COPYING file which is the GPL, verbatim. There's not a lawyer in the world that would say a vague webpage disclaimer or README file (neither of which you actually need to see to get at the source code) overrides that. >From the sounds of it whatever company caused this isn't very friendly.. would you put it past them? You think you're covering your ass but you're not wearing any pants ;) > I strongly believe (although I'm also speculating here;) the next public > release of LinuxSampler, whenever it will be ready, will come with a > proper open-source license. And I pretty guess it will be pure GPL but I > just cannot garantee that yet ;) Cheers, -DR-