Re: 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
Re: Linuxsampler license
On 9/20/05, Branden Robinson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [...] Harald Welte have successfully pursued infringment claims against people who violate the GPL. Einstweilige Verfuegung (ex parte action) != Hauptverfahren (lawsuit). http://www.macnewsworld.com/story/43996.html quote It's a Small Welte After All Across the wide ocean, other enforcement of the GPL runs along a different trail. Harald Welte, a self-appointed enforcer of the GPL who operates a GPL Web site filed two actions with the District Court of Munich to enforce the license. In both cases, Welte was the author of code that had appeared in the defendant's product. The court granted Welte an injunction against Sitecom Deutschland GmbH, prohibiting Sitecom from distributing a wireless networking router until it complied with the GPL. /quote Well, the injunction was about netfilter/iptables code and nothing else. No word about the router. http://groups.google.de/group/gnu.misc.discuss/msg/f80709afd63b125a http://groups.google.de/group/gnu.misc.discuss/msg/cba0154ba16f2117 quote Sitecom appealed the injunction, but lost, /quote Sitecom's objection (not really appeal) to the injunction had really nothing to do with the GPL. And the subsequent ruling by the same district court discussing the GPL (as presented by Welte's attorney) was so bizarre that nobody over here in his right mind believes that it could have withstand the scrutiny of Hauptverfahren, real appeals aside for a moment. quote and Sitecom later posted the terms of the GPL on its FAQ Web page for the router. Welte also filed for an injunction against Fortinet UK Ltd. based on its firewall products, with similar results. Though much has been made of these two cases, there are reasons why Welte has already obtained injunctions in Germany while the FSF has not yet sought one in the US. Injunctive enforcement in Germany is so simple and quick that it makes Americans suspicious about piddling legal details like legal due process. In Germany, a preliminary injunction can be obtained ex parte -- in other words, without giving the defendant the chance to defend itself. (This has the appropriately scary sounding name einstweilige Verfuegung.) /quote See also: http://groups.google.de/group/comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips/msg/1e07... http://groups.google.de/group/comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips/msg/3bdf... regards, alexander.
Re: Linuxsampler license
On 9/20/05, Alexander Terekhov [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 9/20/05, Branden Robinson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [...] Harald Welte have successfully pursued infringment claims against people who violate the GPL. Einstweilige Verfuegung (ex parte action) != Hauptverfahren (lawsuit). http://www.macnewsworld.com/story/43996.html quote It's a Small Welte After All Across the wide ocean, other enforcement of the GPL runs along a different trail. Harald Welte, a self-appointed enforcer of the GPL who operates a GPL Web site filed two actions with the District Court of Munich to enforce the license. In both cases, Welte was the author of code that had appeared in the defendant's product. The court granted Welte an injunction against Sitecom Deutschland GmbH, prohibiting Sitecom from distributing a wireless networking router until it complied with the GPL. /quote Well, the injunction was about netfilter/iptables code and nothing else. No word about the router. http://groups.google.de/group/gnu.misc.discuss/msg/f80709afd63b125a http://groups.google.de/group/gnu.misc.discuss/msg/cba0154ba16f2117 quote Sitecom appealed the injunction, but lost, /quote Sitecom's objection (not really appeal) to the injunction had really nothing to do with the GPL. And the subsequent ruling by the same district court discussing the GPL (as presented by Welte's attorney) was so bizarre that nobody over here in his right mind believes that it could have withstand the scrutiny of Hauptverfahren, real appeals aside for a moment. quote and Sitecom later posted the terms of the GPL on its FAQ Web page for the router. Welte also filed for an injunction against Fortinet UK Ltd. based on its firewall products, with similar results. Though much has been made of these two cases, there are reasons why Welte has already obtained injunctions in Germany while the FSF has not yet sought one in the US. Injunctive enforcement in Germany is so simple and quick that it makes Americans suspicious about piddling legal details like legal due process. In Germany, a preliminary injunction can be obtained ex parte -- in other words, without giving the defendant the chance to defend itself. (This has the appropriately scary sounding name einstweilige Verfuegung.) /quote See also: http://groups.google.de/group/comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips/msg/1e07... http://groups.google.de/group/comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips/msg/3bdf... I meant http://groups.google.de/group/comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips/msg/1e07a593e5e09d59 http://groups.google.de/group/comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips/msg/3bdfe293b33c6b6e regards, alexander.
Re: Linuxsampler license
Lewis Jardine wrote: I believe LGPL 2a (The modified work must itself be a software library), and 2d (...you must make a good faith effort to ensure that, in the event an application does not supply such function or table, the facility still operates...) are 'further restrictions' with regards to GPL 6, and thus the LGPL and GPL are incompatible. The LGPL contains a provision that says you can convert the license of this software to the actual GPL if you want (article 3). That makes it GPL-compatible. Arnoud -- Arnoud Engelfriet, Dutch European patent attorney - Speaking only for myself Patents, copyright and IPR explained for techies: http://www.iusmentis.com/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: 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]
Re: Linuxsampler license
GPL-incompatible Somewhere in the cyberspace (Shlomi Fish on Monday April 01). A recent press conference of the Free Software Foundation confirmed the rumors that the GNU General Public License was found to be incompatible with itself. This newly discovered fact may actually cause a lot of disorder in the free software world in which most programs and libraries are licensed under this license. Richard Stallman, chairman of the FSF, called upon developers to immediately exempt GPL-licensed software from the GPL, as far as linking them with GPL programs is concerned. We have already made sure all GNU software and every other software that is licensed to the Free Software Foundation would be ad-hoc compatible with itself. However we need other developers to do the same for their software, Stallman said. Eben Moglen, the FSF's attorney outlined the subsequent steps that his organization will take to overcome this crisis. The first step would be releasing a Modified General Public License (or MGPL for short) that will be compatible with the GPL and with itself as well as with all other licenses that the GPL is already compatible with. It will be labeled the GPL version 2.1, thus allowing developers to convert their software to it. He noted that care would be taken to make sure the upcoming GPL version 3.0 will be compatible with itself, as well as the MGPL. For the time being, though, there is an explosion of commentary, confusion and otherwise bad temper about the newly formed situation. Eric S. Raymond, the famous Open Source Guru notes: This is one of the greatest blows to the Open Source world, I have yet encountered. I have already exempted all of my own software from the GPL in this regard, but there is a lot of other software out there, and many of its authors are not very communicative. Bill Gates, Microsoft's co-founder, on the other hand, seems to find the situation very amusing: I said times and again, that viral licenses such as the GPL are a bad idea, and many open-source advocates disagreed. Now they see that even making sure one's license is compatible with itself, is hard to do when you open that can of worms. The integrity of many software projects whose license is the GPL and yet contain works licensed by several developers is in jeopardy. The Linux kernel is a prominent example of such a case. In a post to its mailing list, Linus Torvalds commented that, in their case, it was not an issue. My interpretation of the GPL is already quite unusual, so I'll simply rule that I also interpret the GPL as compatible with itself. words-to-avoid http://sco.tuxrocks.com/Docs/Wallace_v_FSF/Wallace_v_FSF-17.pdf http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/words-to-avoid.html#Market http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/words-to-avoid.html#Consumer http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/words-to-avoid.html#IntellectualProperty Did I miss something (more words-to-avoid)? regards, alexander.
Re: Linuxsampler license
On 9/16/05, Alexander Terekhov [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: GPL-incompatible http://www.linuxrising.org/files/licensingfaq.html (We paid the FSF to have them provide us these answers. So these answers are verified correct by people like FSF lawyer and law professor Eben Moglen.) Question: Can someone for example distribute 1. GStreamer, the LGPL library 2. Totem, a GPL playback application 3. The binary-only Sorenson decoder together in one distribution/operating system ? If not, what needs to be changed to make this possible ? Answer: This would be a problem, because the GStreamer and Totem licenses would forbid it. In order to link GStreamer to Totem, you need to use section 3 of the LGPL to convert GStreamer to GPL. I just wonder how can BSD/MIT/... be GPL compatible not having section 3 of the LGPL. words-to-avoid http://sco.tuxrocks.com/Docs/Wallace_v_FSF/Wallace_v_FSF-17.pdf http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/words-to-avoid.html#Market http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/words-to-avoid.html#Consumer http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/words-to-avoid.html#IntellectualProperty Did I miss something (more words-to-avoid)? The GNU/Linux operating system is probably the best known example of a computer program that has been developed using the free software model, and is licensed pursuant to the GPL. Well, well, well. See above. Now, (also quoting FSF's brief) See LucasArts Entertainment Company vs. Humongous Entertainment Company against licensee who claimed that license provision regulating resale prices for derivative works violated the Sherman Act). Does anyone have a link? All I could find is this: In the intellectual property context, however, one federal court held that the Cartwright Act did not prohibit, under the per se rule or otherwise, a provision in a software licensing agreement which prohibited the licensee from selling the licensed program at less than a certain price to anyone other than the licensor. LucasArts Entertainment Co. v. Humongous Entertainment Co., 870 F. Supp. 285 (N.D. Cal. 1993). The court relied on a federal decision, United States v. General Electric, 272 U.S. 476 (1926), which held that patent owners had the power to restrict prices at which licensees sold. Although the General Electric case has not been overruled, its continuing validity is questionable, as the United States Supreme Court has twice split four to four on whether to overrule it and the federal enforcement authorities decline to follow it. And The GE ruling on price-fixing has been heavily qualified but never overruled. Any deviation from the GE-Westinghouse single- manufacturing-licensee paradigm is virtually certain to be held an antitrust violation (and therefore misuse as well). Thus, cross- licenses with price restrictions are illegal. So, too, are licenses to more than one licensee, which, in effect, put together a price-fixing combination among licensees. The Supreme Court has twice divided 4-4 on whether to overrule GE. United States v. Line Material Co., 333 U.S. 287 (1948); United States v. Huck Mfg. Co., 382 U.S. 197 (1965). The Antitrust Division has for years searched for a vehicle to overturn GE but has never succeeded in getting a candidate to hold still long enough to grab it. See ABA, Antitrust Law Developments 3d 822 nn. 167-68. I gather that Wallace might be DOJ's secret agent... ;-) regards, alexander.
Re: Linuxsampler license
On 9/16/05, Harri Järvi [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Fri, Sep 16, 2005 at 14:12:34 +0200, Alexander Terekhov wrote: GPL-incompatible Somewhere in the cyberspace (Shlomi Fish on Monday April 01). That's April Fool's Day. It runs all year long in the GNU Republic. regards, alexander.
Re: Linuxsampler license
On Fri, Sep 16, 2005 at 14:12:34 +0200, Alexander Terekhov wrote: GPL-incompatible Somewhere in the cyberspace (Shlomi Fish on Monday April 01). That's April Fool's Day. -Harri -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Linuxsampler license
On Friday 16 September 2005 17:22, Alexander Terekhov wrote: On 9/16/05, Harri Järvi [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Fri, Sep 16, 2005 at 14:12:34 +0200, Alexander Terekhov wrote: GPL-incompatible Somewhere in the cyberspace (Shlomi Fish on Monday April 01). That's April Fool's Day. It runs all year long in the GNU Republic. Please, be nice and quit tirades like these. Noone needs your jokes, there are better recreation places to read them online then -legal. -- pub 4096R/0E4BD0AB 2003-03-18 people.fccf.net/danchev/key pgp.mit.edu fingerprint 1AE7 7C66 0A26 5BFF DF22 5D55 1C57 0C89 0E4B D0AB -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Linuxsampler license
Alexander Terekhov wrote: On 9/16/05, Alexander Terekhov [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: GPL-incompatible I just wonder how can BSD/MIT/... be GPL compatible not having section 3 of the LGPL. I believe LGPL 2a (The modified work must itself be a software library), and 2d (...you must make a good faith effort to ensure that, in the event an application does not supply such function or table, the facility still operates...) are 'further restrictions' with regards to GPL 6, and thus the LGPL and GPL are incompatible. To be GPL compatible, a license must impose the same, or a subset of, the restrictions the GPL imposes. It can also grant additional permissions, even conditionally, but no further restrictions*. BSD/MIT/zlib/etc. do not impose any futher restrictions than the GPL, and so are GPL compatible. * For example, a license consisting of the GPL (minus the preamble) plus a paragraph 13 'if your name is Jeff, You may copy and distribute the Program (or a work based on it, under Section 2) in object code or executable form, provided you pet a cat' would be GPL-compatible: all the restrictions imposed on the user are the same; if he was called Jeff, he would have the option of exercising additional rights, but no rights taken away. -- Lewis Jardine IANAL, IANADD -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Linuxsampler license
I just wonder how can BSD/MIT/... be GPL compatible not having section 3 of the LGPL. Everything distributable under the terms of BSD/MIT, is also distributable under the terms of the GPL because BSD/MIT (2 and 3 clauses) is *less* restrictive than the GPL. -- HTH, Massa -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Linuxsampler license
On 9/16/05, Humberto Massa Guimarães [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I just wonder how can BSD/MIT/... be GPL compatible not having section 3 of the LGPL. Everything distributable under the terms of BSD/MIT, is also distributable under the terms of the GPL because BSD/MIT (2 and 3 clauses) is *less* restrictive than the GPL. Being less restrictive doesn't make it the GPL. Neither BSD nor MIT allow you to turn their licensing terms and conditions into GPL terms and conditions. regards, alexander.
Re: Linuxsampler license
On 9/16/05, Humberto Massa Guimarães [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I just wonder how can BSD/MIT/... be GPL compatible not having section 3 of the LGPL. Everything distributable under the terms of BSD/MIT, is also distributable under the terms of the GPL because BSD/MIT (2 and 3 clauses) is *less* restrictive than the GPL. Being less restrictive doesn't make it the GPL. Neither BSD nor MIT allow you to turn their licensing terms and conditions into GPL terms and conditions. As a matter of fact, they do. They give you plenty of control over your derivative work when you make it -- including the power to make your derivative work available under a more restrictive license. This is exactly what copyleft licenses (L?GPL et alli) restrict -- if you make a derivative work and the original work is copyleft-licensed, you usually cannot make your derivative available under any license other than the original license itself. -- HTH, Massa
Re: Linuxsampler license
On 9/16/05, Humberto Massa Guimarães [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 9/16/05, Humberto Massa Guimarães [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I just wonder how can BSD/MIT/... be GPL compatible not having section 3 of the LGPL. Everything distributable under the terms of BSD/MIT, is also distributable under the terms of the GPL because BSD/MIT (2 and 3 clauses) is *less* restrictive than the GPL. Being less restrictive doesn't make it the GPL. Neither BSD nor MIT allow you to turn their licensing terms and conditions into GPL terms and conditions. As a matter of fact, they do. They give you plenty of control over your derivative work when you make it -- including the power to make your derivative work available under a more restrictive license. Derivative source code must stay under original license. You're right that BSD/MIT/... allow sublicensing under different terms for *binary form*... but that's just like the IBM's CPL, for example, which even Microsoft uses and likes (in spite of contractual obligation to provide access to [modified] source code under original license, may I note). regards, alexander.
RE: Linuxsampler license
Derivative source code must stay under original license. You're right that BSD/MIT/... allow sublicensing under different terms for *binary form*... but that's just like the IBM's CPL, for example, which even Microsoft uses and likes (in spite of contractual obligation to provide access to [modified] source code under original license, may I note). No, no and no. Full text of MIT/X11 license: Permission is hereby granted, free of charge, to any person ^^ obtaining a copy of this software and associated documentation files (the Software), to deal in the Software without restriction, including without limitation the rights to use, copy, modify, merge, ^^ ^^ publish, distribute, and/or sell copies of the Software, and to ^^^ permit persons to whom the Software is furnished to do so, provided that the above copyright notice(s) and this permission notice appear in all copies of the Software and that both the above copyright notice(s) and this permission notice appear in supporting documentation. THE SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED AS IS, WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO THE WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY, FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE AND NONINFRINGEMENT OF THIRD PARTY RIGHTS. IN NO EVENT SHALL THE COPYRIGHT HOLDER OR HOLDERS INCLUDED IN THIS NOTICE BE LIABLE FOR ANY CLAIM, OR ANY SPECIAL INDIRECT OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES, OR ANY DAMAGES WHATSOEVER RESULTING FROM LOSS OF USE, DATA OR PROFITS, WHETHER IN AN ACTION OF CONTRACT, NEGLIGENCE OR OTHER TORTIOUS ACTION, ARISING OUT OF OR IN CONNECTION WITH THE USE OR PERFORMANCE OF THIS SOFTWARE. Except as contained in this notice, the name of a copyright holder shall not be used in advertising or otherwise to promote the sale, use or other dealings in this Software without prior written authorization of the copyright holder. This is why this license style is also called 2-clause BSD: the only conditions are: 1. the copyright notice and the license text appear in all copies; and 2. the copyright notice and license text appear in supporting documentation. no conditions on source, binaries, or similar stuff. -- HTH, Massa -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Linuxsampler license
On Fri, 16 Sep 2005 14:08:33 -0300 Humberto Massa Guimarães wrote: Derivative source code must stay under original license. You're right that BSD/MIT/... allow sublicensing under different terms for *binary form*... but that's just like the IBM's CPL, for example, which even Microsoft uses and likes (in spite of contractual obligation to provide access to [modified] source code under original license, may I note). No, no and no. Full text of MIT/X11 license: [Underlined text of the X11 license] Right. I agree that Alexander seems to be wrong. With MIT and BSD licenses, you are granted permission to modify and redistribute the modified software under a more restrictive license. In source or other form. Parts that are taken from the original software are still under the original license, but any contribution you add to the code may be under any other license (even a proprietary one). Anyone who would like to deal with the modified version must comply with *both* licenses (unless she manages to extract the parts that are still under the original license and deal with them only) and of course the most restrictive of the two imposes the major constraints... This is why this license style is also called 2-clause BSD: the only conditions are: 1. the copyright notice and the license text appear in all copies; and 2. the copyright notice and license text appear in supporting documentation. no conditions on source, binaries, or similar stuff. Please do not confuse MIT licenses with BSD ones. The 2-clause BSD license is so called because of its bulleted list (or enumaration) of conditions that contains 2 items. The 3-clause BSD license includes 3 items instead. Similarly for 4-clause BSD... The X11 license does not include a bulleted list of conditions. Neither does the Expat license. Text of mentioned licenses: Expat (a.k.a. MIT) http://www.jclark.com/xml/copying.txt X11 (a.k.a. MIT) http://www.x.org/Downloads_terms.html 2-clause BSDhttp://www.gnu.org/licenses/info/BSD_2Clause.html 3-clause BSDhttp://www.gnu.org/licenses/info/BSD_3Clause.html 4-clause BSDhttp://www.gnu.org/licenses/info/BSD_4Clause.html Note: as you may remember, the 4-clause BSD is *not* a recommended license, since it has the obnoxious advertising clause... -- :-( This Universe is buggy! Where's the Creator's BTS? ;-) .. Francesco Poli GnuPG Key ID = DD6DFCF4 Key fingerprint = C979 F34B 27CE 5CD8 DC12 31B5 78F4 279B DD6D FCF4 pgpyuYjCcqO8c.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: 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 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Linuxsampler license
El jueves, 15 de septiembre de 2005 a las 10:50:12 +0200, Sven Luther escribía: 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. Probably not, according to some interpretations (the GPL does not allow adding restrictions. The author can distribute the work, since he/she is the author, but noone else can distribute a work licensed in this way). Also, the use of the word exception is very sneaky :-) It is more like an additional restriction :-) -- Jacobo Tarrío | http://jacobo.tarrio.org/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Linuxsampler license
El jueves, 15 de septiembre de 2005 a las 13:07:18 +0300, George Danchev escribía: That is indeed non-free and fails DFSG #6, the package cannot be in main, but could be in non-free maybe. Probably not, according to some interpretations (the GPL does not allow Right, as explained in #12 h, i, j, k at: http://people.debian.org/~bap/dfsg-faq.html What I meant is that some believe that a piece covered by the GPL+additional restrictions, even if these restrictions were added by the author, is not distributable at all (by anyone other than the author). Of course it's non-free if it does not allow commercial usage. -- Jacobo Tarrío | http://jacobo.tarrio.org/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Linuxsampler license
On Thu, Sep 15, 2005 at 12:45:41PM +0200, Jacobo Tarrio wrote: El jueves, 15 de septiembre de 2005 a las 13:07:18 +0300, George Danchev escrib?a: That is indeed non-free and fails DFSG #6, the package cannot be in main, but could be in non-free maybe. Probably not, according to some interpretations (the GPL does not allow Right, as explained in #12 h, i, j, k at: http://people.debian.org/~bap/dfsg-faq.html What I meant is that some believe that a piece covered by the GPL+additional restrictions, even if these restrictions were added by the author, is not distributable at all (by anyone other than the author). That's an interesting interpretation. The only such thing that I have heard is that licenses with restrictions not present in the GPL are GPL-incompatible, which makes this license (exception included) GPL-incompatible. I think this is still a consistent license, though perhaps difficult to interpret. Just that you couldn't link linuxsampler with GPL code (according to the FSF). Actually, isn't this sufficient to warrent removal, since linuxsampler is linked against libasound2? (Unless the authors of that code specifically indicate an alternate interpretation). Justin -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: 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
Re: 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]
Re: Linuxsampler license
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. Also it seems to me that Linuxsampler's authors wouldn't be allowed to make the kind of a restriction to the GPL as they do. The copyright holder can do whatever they want. However, its sometimes impossible to use the software in a way consistent with all of their license terms .. see, for example, recent threads on the PHP license, which is used by some software written in php, but not php itself. The php license implies that redistribution of the software includes PHP; but, it does not (well, it could, but it should not have to). So, Debian is taking the stance of we will not distribute this software, because the license is unclear or inconsistent, or just badly implemented (depending on your interpretation). 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. The part after the comma makes it DFSG nonfree, because it is inconsistent with [0]: | 6. No Discrimination Against Fields of Endeavor | | The license must not restrict anyone from making use of the program in | a specific field of endeavor. For example, it may not restrict the | program from being used in a business The debian copyright-file only says: 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. Thats a Debian packaging bug. In summary, I think there is a conflict between the copyright statement in the debian package and the copyright statement in the upstream linuxsampler readme (copyright statement). Debian package maintainer shouldn't have removed the part of the copyright/license statement that made the additional restrictions. Agree (but, it was probably a mistake; I think the GPL bit in ./debian/copyright was probably pasted there by dh_make). Also there seems to be a conflict between the GPL and the Linuxsampler's way to add restrictions. I don't think you are allowed to use GPL and make additional restrictions to it. The copyright holder is allowed to do whatever they want. (However, they are not allowed to modify the GPL; it disallows that). This license, as ammeded, is inconsistent, though. I don't think the upstream version would be DFSG if the restrictions would apply. Agree. I'm filing a grave bug now, hopefully with Cc: -legal the right way, this time. Either upstream needs to be contacted to rectify the situation, or the package needs to be removed. At present, the software can be unknowingly used by a Debian user in violation of the license terms, and that's a problem. Justin References [0] http://www.us.debian.org/social_contract -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: 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]
