Bug#328121: linuxsampler license
Hello Matt, Have you thought about what to do about the linux sampler license problem, bug #328121 [0]? -- Clear skies, Justin References [0] http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=328121 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bug#328121: linuxsampler license
OK - no worries, I will hang tight to hear if Chris replies to you Paul. Matt On Fri, Sep 30, 2005 at 03:58:44AM +0100, Paul Brossier wrote: Hi all, On Fri, Sep 30, 2005 at 12:36:37PM +1000, Matt Flax wrote: Hi, yes I was thinking about removing it from the Debian release system. What about you Paul ? I have sent a private email with Christian. I am still hoping that he changes the README file in the CVS. Let's give him a few more days. By the way, what is the process to request removal from the release system ? file a bug against ftp.debian.org. cheers, piem -- http://www.flatmax.org Public Projects : http://sourceforge.net/search/?type_of_search=softwords=mffm -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bug#328121: linuxsampler license
Hi all, On Fri, Sep 30, 2005 at 12:36:37PM +1000, Matt Flax wrote: Hi, yes I was thinking about removing it from the Debian release system. What about you Paul ? I have sent a private email with Christian. I am still hoping that he changes the README file in the CVS. Let's give him a few more days. By the way, what is the process to request removal from the release system ? file a bug against ftp.debian.org. cheers, piem -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bug#328121: Linuxsampler license
On Sat, Sep 17, 2005 at 10:31:30AM +0300, Harri Järvi wrote: It has come to my attention that released Linuxsampler versions up to the latest release 0.3.3 are licensed purely under the GPL. The NON COMMERCIAL-exception has been added to the cvs version and is reflected on the homepage also. [SNIP] I agree with your assessment. I would direct the upstream authors to David Wheeler's essay on this very subject: http://www.dwheeler.com/essays/gpl-compatible.html I will also note that by using the GPL, they will very likely get the community's support in identifying any infringements that occur by commercial distributors. I suspect this is less likely with a home-grown license, which many sympathetic users may not take the time to understand. Moreover, both the FSF and Harald Welte have successfully pursued infringment claims against people who violate the GPL. According to Eben Moglen, General Counsel of the FSF, they prefer to settle things simply by asking for, and getting compliance with the license's terms[1][2]; Mr. Welte has successfully gotten a court injunction on at least one occasion I can think of[3]. [1] http://emoglen.law.columbia.edu/publications/lu-12.html [2] http://emoglen.law.columbia.edu/publications/lu-13.html [3] http://gpl-violations.org/news/20050414-fortinet-injunction.html -- G. Branden Robinson|Build a fire for a man, and he'll Debian GNU/Linux |be warm for a day. Set a man on [EMAIL PROTECTED] |fire, and he'll be warm for the http://people.debian.org/~branden/ |rest of his life. - Terry Pratchett signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Bug#328121: Linuxsampler license
On Thu, Sep 15, 2005 at 10:50:12 +0200, Sven Luther wrote: That is indeed non-free and fails DFSG #6, the package cannot be in main, but could be in non-free maybe. It has come to my attention that released Linuxsampler versions up to the latest release 0.3.3 are licensed purely under the GPL. The NON COMMERCIAL-exception has been added to the cvs version and is reflected on the homepage also. The debian packaged version in unstable is from cvs where this restriction is added. It has to be removed from Debian. It seems that the authors are considering to find another license for future releases. They are looking to find ways to force companies making use of Linuxsampler in their products to participate in development of Linuxsampler or other open source audio project. [1] It also seems they are looking for an open source license or if they won't find one they'll write one themselves. I'm concerned that they might end up with a non free, non opensource license. If you work in the audio field and have the same concern about Linuxsampler, it might be wise to participate in the conversation on the Linuxsampler developer mailing list and express yourself. [1] To me it seems that the authors are afraid that companies will take advantage of the software without contributing anything to the community. They don't seem to feel that GPL is the best way to attract contributions from companies. With good arguments they might see that GPL is as good as it gets. Choosing another license for Linuxsampler will make it impossible to make use of GPL'd software as part of linuxsampler. Writing their own license will be difficult and error prone. And it will add up to the jungle of confusion in world of licenses. Choosing or writing a non opensource license will make them have to leave sourceforge and might lead into forking Linuxsampler into free (or opensource) and nonfree (proprietary/non opensource) versions. Yours, Harri Järvi [1] http://sourceforge.net/mailarchive/forum.php?thread_id=8119452forum_id=12792 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bug#328121: Linuxsampler license
On Wed, Sep 14, 2005 at 16:26:15 +0200, Göran Weinholt wrote: On Tue, Sep 13, 2005 at 05:54:35PM +0300, Harri Järvi wrote: In addition there's a conflict between linuxsampler's aim to be an opensource software, and the license used. Restricting commercial use makes the software nonopensource by OSI definition and nonfree by Free Software Foundation's Free Software definition. I think upstream only meant to make it clear to developers of proprietary software that they need to ask for a special license if they don't want to follow the GPL. I wish it was so, but this is written on the project home page at http://www.linuxsampler.org/downloads.html: License LinuxSampler is licensed under the GNU GPL license with the exception that COMMERCIAL USE of the souce code, libraries and applications is NOT ALLOWED without prior written permission by the LinuxSampler authors. If you have questions on the subject please contact us. Yours, Harri Järvi -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bug#328121: Linuxsampler license
On Thu, Sep 15, 2005 at 08:03:46AM +0300, Harri Järvi wrote: On Wed, Sep 14, 2005 at 16:26:15 +0200, Göran Weinholt wrote: On Tue, Sep 13, 2005 at 05:54:35PM +0300, Harri Järvi wrote: In addition there's a conflict between linuxsampler's aim to be an opensource software, and the license used. Restricting commercial use makes the software nonopensource by OSI definition and nonfree by Free Software Foundation's Free Software definition. I think upstream only meant to make it clear to developers of proprietary software that they need to ask for a special license if they don't want to follow the GPL. I wish it was so, but this is written on the project home page at http://www.linuxsampler.org/downloads.html: License LinuxSampler is licensed under the GNU GPL license with the exception that COMMERCIAL USE of the souce code, libraries and applications is NOT ALLOWED without prior written permission by the LinuxSampler authors. If you have questions on the subject please contact us. That is indeed non-free and fails DFSG #6, the package cannot be in main, but could be in non-free maybe. Friendly, Sven Luther
Bug#328121: Linuxsampler license
I have contacted the author and am waiting to see whether he will change the license. If not then we will either remove or move it to non-free. Matt On Thu, Sep 15, 2005 at 10:50:12AM +0200, Sven Luther wrote: On Thu, Sep 15, 2005 at 08:03:46AM +0300, Harri J?rvi wrote: On Wed, Sep 14, 2005 at 16:26:15 +0200, G?ran Weinholt wrote: On Tue, Sep 13, 2005 at 05:54:35PM +0300, Harri J?rvi wrote: In addition there's a conflict between linuxsampler's aim to be an opensource software, and the license used. Restricting commercial use makes the software nonopensource by OSI definition and nonfree by Free Software Foundation's Free Software definition. I think upstream only meant to make it clear to developers of proprietary software that they need to ask for a special license if they don't want to follow the GPL. I wish it was so, but this is written on the project home page at http://www.linuxsampler.org/downloads.html: License LinuxSampler is licensed under the GNU GPL license with the exception that COMMERCIAL USE of the souce code, libraries and applications is NOT ALLOWED without prior written permission by the LinuxSampler authors. If you have questions on the subject please contact us. That is indeed non-free and fails DFSG #6, the package cannot be in main, but could be in non-free maybe. Friendly, Sven Luther -- http://www.flatmax.org Public Projects : http://sourceforge.net/search/?type_of_search=softwords=mffm -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bug#328121: Linuxsampler license
That is indeed non-free and fails DFSG #6, the package cannot be in main, but could be in non-free maybe. No, this is really an additional restriction over the GPL, thus rendering the software undistributable for everyone but the original author. -- HTH, massa -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bug#328121: Linuxsampler license
On Tue, Sep 13, 2005 at 05:54:35PM +0300, Harri Järvi wrote: [...] The problem is that the README in linuxsampler says the following thing: 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. I agree that this is inconsistent as written, but I think it's likely that upstream meant to write proprietary instead of commercial. Simply explaining the difference to them should be enough to make them change the wording. See this essay for an explanation of the difference: http://www.fsf.org/licensing/essays/words-to-avoid.html#Commercial In addition there's a conflict between linuxsampler's aim to be an opensource software, and the license used. Restricting commercial use makes the software nonopensource by OSI definition and nonfree by Free Software Foundation's Free Software definition. I think upstream only meant to make it clear to developers of proprietary software that they need to ask for a special license if they don't want to follow the GPL. Regards, -- Göran Weinholt [EMAIL PROTECTED] Debian developer, sysadmin, netadmin signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Bug#328121: Linuxsampler license
On Tue, Sep 13, 2005 at 01:02:43PM -0400, pryzbyj wrote: On Tue, Sep 13, 2005 at 05:54:35PM +0300, Harri J?rvi wrote: Hello, Linuxsampler is packaged in debian unstable. It would seem to me that Linuxsampler currently is not compatible with DFSG. Agree. I'm filing a grave bug now, hopefully with Cc: -legal the right way, this time. Nope, I put it in the pseudoheader instead of the SMTP header. This is bug #328121. Justin -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
