Re: [LAD] [OT] LinuxSampler and GPL - some clarifications
On Sun, 2008-01-27 at 01:02 +0100, Mlf Conv wrote: This means that: 1. usage of a computer program licensed under the terms of GPL in a hardware product, whether modified or not, is not a distribution of a computer program licensed under the terms of GPL, and is thus prohibited by GPL. I don't follow on this one. I was under the impression that it's perfectly ok to include GPL software in hardware, but that the sources must be provided. 2. usage of a computer program licensed under the terms of GPL, whether modified or not, in a software product, the intention of which is not to distribute a computer program licensed under the terms of GPL, is not a distribution of a computer program licensed under the terms of GPL, and is thus prohibited by GPL. Huh? So to summarize that with respect to LinuxSampler, the exception LinuxSampler is licensed under the GNU GPL with the exception that USAGE of the source code, libraries and applications FOR COMMERCIAL HARDWARE OR SOFTWARE PRODUCTS IS NOT ALLOWED is in fact no exception at all, and is already covered by GPL. We have been told that the LS team talked to the FSF people. If things would be so easy, I'm sure it would have been resolved already. -- Thorsten Wilms thorwil's design for free software: http://thorwil.wordpress.com/ ___ Linux-audio-dev mailing list Linux-audio-dev@lists.linuxaudio.org http://lists.linuxaudio.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-audio-dev
Re: [LAD] Summercode 2008: LASH, pt. 2
On Sun, 2008-01-27 at 12:33 +0200, Nedko Arnaudov wrote: * User interface standard recommendation (documentation). fit: -5 I dont think this is in the scope of LASH. IMHO, such plans fit much more to PHAT project. I think such a standard would just start with what labels to use for LASH related actions and how to organise menu items. It could contain one or the other layout recommendation or how to handle certain scenarios regarding notifications and dialogs. So all things with a clear relation to LASH. -- Thorsten Wilms thorwil's design for free software: http://thorwil.wordpress.com/ ___ Linux-audio-dev mailing list Linux-audio-dev@lists.linuxaudio.org http://lists.linuxaudio.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-audio-dev
Re: [LAD] Summercode 2008: LASH, pt. 2
Juuso Alasuutari [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Here's a list of all LASH suggestions expressed so far, as well as some new ones. It's quite a bunch, and it goes without saying that this is NOT A PLAN; no sane person would actually try to cram all of these into an application. If my application gets chosen for Summercode I'll only be concentrating on a few key things (to be announced later, maybe after another brainstorm). Great work so far! Having those in one place is quite useful. It allows easy spoting of common goals where developers can cooperate. So, please take this as a memo, and please do comment. The internet doesn't contain enough ASCII yet. I'll use -5 .. 0 .. +5 numbers to express how well each things fits my personal view. Here they go: Suggested changes to internal structure: * Interact with JACK using the JACK D-Bus interface. Lashd no longer required to be a libjack client. fit: +5 - Jackdbus needs a port settings interface. what is this? the patchbay interface? I.e. connect/discconect ports, get clients/ports, get current connections, get notifications about graph changes? * Interact with LASH clients using D-Bus (change liblash's transport to use D-Bus). fit: +2 - What if the client has its own D-Bus event loop and wants to manually handle the LASH protocol? We need an option to also allow this. Here I'm affraid of some technical problems. What if app uses some dbus binding that hides everything? And how lash dbus code will be executed in app using glib/qt bindings. Also I expect other audio related dbus functionality to become more widely used and we could try to coordinate this now: * http://ll-plugins.sourceforge.net/dbus/midiinput.html (curently bound to JACK MIDI, but easlity extendable). * JACK Synthesizer Manager Proposal (using D-Bus)? * Replace liblash's server interface with a LASH D-Bus interface. LASH control applications no longer required to be liblash clients. - Requires API change. fit: +4 Given the low availablitity of such applications (about 3 of them, some of them probably in stalled state), I'd be bold here. * Certificates and encryption for communication protocol. - What the communication protocol refers to is another question... fit: +1 D-Bus authentication mechanisms should be used here probably. * OSC (?) If for lash client - lash server protocol: fit: -1 * Server rewrite in C++. fit: +2 * Client lib rewrite in GObject. fit: -2 I'm against using GObject, not against making it more OO internally. * Server rewrite in Python fit: +4 * Strip support for ALSA (make LASH - JACK specific) fit: +2 API change suggestions: * Break it? How? When? - Probably unavoidable eventually. fit: -5 Don't break current client API. We have have enough lashified apps we know about and nobody knows how much lashified apps we dont know about. Still we should make alternative client interface to be used in new apps. Existing lashified apps can be switched to the new api if someone has motivation to do this. Still we cannot be sure that we know all existing lashified apps. Also, this will fsck up distro packagers, with result being low adoption. IMHO, if we provide better alternative API, most developers will use it instead (in most cases). Thus: * Provide new *alternative* API: fit: +4 * Remove the server interface from liblash. Controlling LASH will happen through a D-Bus interface. - Dave Robillard has expressed that the current interface separation makes it difficult to write a LASH control application which is at the same time a LASH client (Patchage). fit: +4 * Mandate that LASH clients shall not modify any external port connections. - Actually enforce this using JACK ACL? (A partial solution, doesn't help with ALSA and others.) fit: +4 * Make the save directory static to clients unless a change notification is sent. What is this? * More generic patch system API. What is this? * Use callbacks instead of current event framework. fit: +3 * Add test disk operation function; the server can ask the client to test if it can actually read from and write to the specified directory. Why is this needed? Feature addition suggestions: * Lashd should capture clients' stdout and stderr and keep log(s) in the project dir. - One common log file or per-client ones? One common per-user (lashd is per-user process) log file. Use prefixes to distinguish between each client output and stdout/stderr. fit: +5 * Preserve/restore JACK settings other than port connections. - Make this optional; the user must be able to tell LASH to not touch any JACK settings. fit: +5 - Should this be the responsibility of a JACK controller app? fit: -3 - LASH being able to restart JACK server in the bad thing happens. The same way it can restart lash clients. fit: +5 * Export/import session; create or unpack a tarball of the session directory. fit: +4 * Light
Re: [LAD] [OT] LinuxSampler and GPL - some clarifications
Am Sonntag, 27. Januar 2008 09:52:35 schrieb Thorsten Wilms: So to summarize that with respect to LinuxSampler, the exception LinuxSampler is licensed under the GNU GPL with the exception that USAGE of the source code, libraries and applications FOR COMMERCIAL HARDWARE OR SOFTWARE PRODUCTS IS NOT ALLOWED is in fact no exception at all, and is already covered by GPL. We have been told that the LS team talked to the FSF people. If things would be so easy, I'm sure it would have been resolved already. Exactly. We don't have any sadomasochistic tendencies, so we're not keeping this restriction and all the flamewars for fun. I would appreciate if your claim would be true Marek, but it seems the FSF does not share your interpretation of the GPL. And if the author of the license doesn't ... you know ... who would? And IMO this is the wrong place to discuss this issue anyway. I'm sure the FSF can give you better answers than anybody here. CU Christian ___ Linux-audio-dev mailing list Linux-audio-dev@lists.linuxaudio.org http://lists.linuxaudio.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-audio-dev
Re: [LAD] JACK Synthesizer Manager Proposal
Hi Audun, Thank you for answering. The idea is to provide the JSM with a patch and synth (and other metadata) database, and a mechanism for sequencers to connect to and query the database. So patch selection will happen in the sequencer in the classical sense: I think that contradicts to what Thorsten wrote: I think the patch selection would be more part of the JSM than the sequencer, but the details must be figured out in collaboration with sequencer authors. So it wouldn't be the sequencer requesting a patch, but rather patch selection through the JSM, the JSM providing all necessary info to the sequencer and changing connections. Thorsten also writes about JSM providing info to the sequencer. But as I understand it the trick is that the sequencer tells JSM what sound it wants so that JSM can find and select an appropriate patch from one of the available synthesizers. I think such a scheme could be implemented without a change to the sequencers. JSM being in between the sequencer and the synthesizers would receive the patch changes (PC / CC) from the sequencer and perform a translation to them before sending them to one of the synthesizers. +-Sequencer-+ +-JSM-+ +-+ | | | |--CC 32 / PC 56--| Synth A | | #TRACK 1# |-PC 32---|-Synth Bass-|-\ / +-+ | | | | X | #TRACK 2# |-PC 06---|-Rhodes EP--|-/ \ +-+ | | | |--PC 98--| Synth B | +---+ +-+ +-+ That's how I understand it: JSM implements a standard patch list. Much like the General MIDI patch list (only more comprehensive). When JSM receives a patch change it makes use of the user provided synth profile in order find a synthesizer and to select a fitting patch from it. There's no need for JSM to talk back to the sequencer since it wouldn't make any difference. But it could be even easier: From the outside, the computer can be dealt with like a single compound synthesizer. Different synthesizers can be triggered from ranges on a single keyboard (key splits). Synthesizers can be layered. The whole setup can be switched with program changes. In such a scenario the sequencer (or master keyboard) wouldn't need to bother about patch selection at all. Patch selection would be entirely JSM's domain: +-Sequencer-+ +-JSM-+ +-+ | | | |--CC 32 / PC 56--| Synth A | | #TRACK 1# |-|-Synth Bass-|-\ / +-+ | | | | X | #TRACK 2# |-|-Rhodes EP--|-/ \ +-+ | | | |--PC 98--| Synth B | +---+ +-+ +-+ Yours sincerely, Dennis Schulmeister -- Dennis Schulmeister - Schifferstr. 1 - 76189 Karlsruhe - Germany Tel: +49 721/5978883 - Mob: +49 152/01994400 - eMail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Now moved to the corridor: Hermes! (http://ncc-1701a.homelinux.net) (mostly German) http://www.windows3.de - http://www.denchris.de http://www.audiominds.com - http://www.motagator.net/bands/65 GunPG KeyID: B8382C97 On Sun, 2008-01-27 at 00:24 +0100, Audun Halland wrote: Dennis Schulmeister wrote: So the idea is to decouple patch selection from the sequencers. A sequencer would just send MIDI data to a MIDI port offered to it by JSM. JSM in turn would provide the necessary means to select a patch from any synthesizer available. The idea is to provide the JSM with a patch and synth (and other metadata) database, and a mechanism for sequencers to connect to and query the database. So patch selection will happen in the sequencer in the classical sense: I imagine that a patch database entry will contain the necessary information the sequencer needs in order to get the right sound from it's midi tracks: The port to connect to (A JSM jack midi input port), the midi channel and the required program and bank changes. The only thing that changes inside the sequencer is that it doesn't have to care about midi metadata, it gets it for free from the JSM. The sequencer is entirely free as to whether it wants to read the JSM database or not. The same old midi data is sent, and it can be set up by hand using low level midi numbers if one wants that instead. Of course for such a feature an arbitrary large library of meta-data of all patches of all MIDI-capable synthesizers ever built and written would be needed. :) Metadata for most synths are available via a simple google search. The plan for JSM is to be able to read and import the standard instrument definition formats and put the instrument definitions in it's database, ready for sequencers to read. Some of the patch categorization has to be set up by hand,
Re: [LAD] [OT] LinuxSampler and GPL - some clarifications
1. usage of a computer program licensed under the terms of GPL in a hardware product, whether modified or not, is not a distribution of a computer program licensed under the terms of GPL, and is thus prohibited by GPL. I don't follow you there. Why the exception you mention (selling computers with Linux preinstalled) is indeed a exception and not the rule? As I see it, where it really matters, LS is Open Source and Free Software, whatever the FSF, the OSI or anyone else says. No matter how it is worded, the only freedom the LS authors are trying to keep from you is the one to make a direct commercial profit of their hard work without giving back to the community, with seems to me more than fair enough and quite worthy of openishness and freeishness. You have the sources, you can improve them, you can fork the project provided you keep a compatible license... It intends to encourage the sharing of any potential improvement of the sw more strongly than the GPL. What's not free or open there? The only absolutely free license is PD, every other one has some restriction or another. This interpretation is clear from their FAQ and I can't fathom what can be seen as misleading in it. It is clearly not GPL, but GPL-based. So what? If GPL was The-Only-Rightful-Way there wouldn't be any other gazillion of licenses more or less based on it. Just call it the LS license. However, I also don't think the (in)famous GPL exception is strictly necessary, effective or useful. I will explain: Let's say two imaginary companies, Amaha and Boland, decide to market an equivalent model of hw sampler. After a market study they reach the conclusion that to make a good enough business they must sell the hw at 2000 GP (RPG gamers know what kind currency GP is :-) If they also develop a custom controller software they must add 1000 GP to the retail price. Amaha develops both hw and sw and sells its sampler at 3000 GP. Boland uses LS but tries to squeeze the market value and make an unfair extra benefit out if it and sells its product at 2900 GP. This is plain stealing, and it is what the LS guys try to prevent. I think they are violating the plain GPL here, since they are not charging 'reasonable' costs for distributing a GPLd software, but it will be hard and costly to prove it in court. They can always make up the numbers or claim that 900 GP is a rightful extra profit for the hw if the market allows it. I don't know how effective the additional exception can prove in this situation, but it is probably better than nothing. However, it will work only once. If Boland sampler is successful enough how long will it take to Amaha to market their own LS-based version and sell it at little more than 2000 GP? In this later case, my interpretation is that they are in the same situation as a PC retailer selling Linux computers, and thus are not making an unfair profit, so this should not bother LS authors since Amaha is giving back to the community by manufacturing and selling cheaper products and not directly benefiting from their work. xjadeo is a GPL sw Robin Gareus and I developed and now is included, together with some more worthy software (linux kernel, ardour...) in a commercial audio console. I want to believe that the market itself it is protecting the community of being ripped off, because justice is unfortunately different than legality and we have no means to prevent it. I think this is a discussion valid for the LAD list, since we all are concerned about licensing our software and the use other people make of it. Luis ___ Linux-audio-dev mailing list Linux-audio-dev@lists.linuxaudio.org http://lists.linuxaudio.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-audio-dev
Re: [LAD] JACK Synthesizer Manager Proposal
On Sun, 2008-01-27 at 12:55 +0100, Dennis Schulmeister wrote: The idea is to provide the JSM with a patch and synth (and other metadata) database, and a mechanism for sequencers to connect to and query the database. So patch selection will happen in the sequencer in the classical sense: I think that contradicts to what Thorsten wrote: It can always be that we have somewhat different ideas, especially at this early stage. I think the patch selection would be more part of the JSM than the sequencer, but the details must be figured out in collaboration with sequencer authors. So it wouldn't be the sequencer requesting a patch, but rather patch selection through the JSM, the JSM providing all necessary info to the sequencer and changing connections. Thorsten also writes about JSM providing info to the sequencer. But as I understand it the trick is that the sequencer tells JSM what sound it wants so that JSM can find and select an appropriate patch from one of the available synthesizers. I wanted to emphasise that all the knowledge should be in the JSM and that a sequencer as client only offers an interface to use the JSM. As such, a sequencer would never request a patch from the JSM that needs to be resolved, because patch selection already happened through the JSM so the selected patch is clearly defined. That's how I understand it: JSM implements a standard patch list. Much like the General MIDI patch list (only more comprehensive). When JSM receives a patch change it makes use of the user provided synth profile in order find a synthesizer and to select a fitting patch from it. The General MIDI standard patch list will be useful thanks to all the hardware supporting it and it could make sense to allow specifying GM equivalents for Patches to have a fallback. But the general idea is not a standard patch list, but listing everything that is available in the specific environment plus having meta-data for filtering/searching. Unifying patch selection is at the core, improving the portability of projects comes second. Instead of having to select a device (implicitly via a port/channel), a bank and a program number, the user should be able to pick a patch from a flat list, aided by searching/filtering. Comparable to what Ardour does for plugin selection (as pioneered in Om/Ingen). It is not desired that only a description of the patch is stored and resolved each time; the patch selection ends with a specific patch. However, it might be possible to store search terms with the selection and use them once the project is opened in another environment. Thanks for your thoughts! -- Thorsten Wilms thorwil's design for free software: http://thorwil.wordpress.com/ ___ Linux-audio-dev mailing list Linux-audio-dev@lists.linuxaudio.org http://lists.linuxaudio.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-audio-dev
Re: [LAD] [OT] LinuxSampler and GPL - some clarifications
On Jan 27, 2008 10:52 AM, Thorsten Wilms [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Sun, 2008-01-27 at 01:02 +0100, Mlf Conv wrote: This means that: 1. usage of a computer program licensed under the terms of GPL in a hardware product, whether modified or not, is not a distribution of a computer program licensed under the terms of GPL, and is thus prohibited by GPL. I don't follow on this one. I was under the impression that it's perfectly ok to include GPL software in hardware, but that the sources must be provided. If you buy a computer with Linux preinstalled then yes. 2. usage of a computer program licensed under the terms of GPL, whether modified or not, in a software product, the intention of which is not to distribute a computer program licensed under the terms of GPL, is not a distribution of a computer program licensed under the terms of GPL, and is thus prohibited by GPL. Huh? Let's put it this way, if a make a proprietary sound converter that uses libsndfile and i charge for the converter $30 is that distribution of libsndfile under the terms of GPL? See sections 2b) and 3a) of GPLv2. So to summarize that with respect to LinuxSampler, the exception LinuxSampler is licensed under the GNU GPL with the exception that USAGE of the source code, libraries and applications FOR COMMERCIAL HARDWARE OR SOFTWARE PRODUCTS IS NOT ALLOWED is in fact no exception at all, and is already covered by GPL. We have been told that the LS team talked to the FSF people. If things would be so easy, I'm sure it would have been resolved already. I was under the impression that they haven't talked to their lawyers directly from what i heard. Marek -- Thorsten Wilms thorwil's design for free software: http://thorwil.wordpress.com/ ___ Linux-audio-dev mailing list Linux-audio-dev@lists.linuxaudio.org http://lists.linuxaudio.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-audio-dev ___ Linux-audio-dev mailing list Linux-audio-dev@lists.linuxaudio.org http://lists.linuxaudio.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-audio-dev
Re: [LAD] [OT] LinuxSampler and GPL - some clarifications
On Jan 27, 2008 5:50 AM, porl sheean [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 27/01/2008, Mlf Conv [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: So LinuxSampler is basically a pure GPLed computer program. Marek i'm not trying to add fuel to the fire or anything, but if this is the case, and the gpl protects against the sort of thing they are worried about anyway, why go through all the hassle of adding the clause that has obviously (whether deserved or not) caused so much controversy? wouldn't it be better to simply have a faq item stating that the gpl prohibits this behaviour anyway? i hope this comes across right without upsetting anyone, as it is obviously a delicate topic, and i am just trying to understand it better myself, not cause more issues :) porl Yes, that's what i was suggesting, when i talked to Christian last time. Or making an amendment to GPL which is fully GPL compatible if it feels to vague. Marek ___ Linux-audio-dev mailing list Linux-audio-dev@lists.linuxaudio.org http://lists.linuxaudio.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-audio-dev
Re: [LAD] [OT] LinuxSampler and GPL - some clarifications
On Jan 27, 2008 1:19 PM, Luis Garrido [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 1. usage of a computer program licensed under the terms of GPL in a hardware product, whether modified or not, is not a distribution of a computer program licensed under the terms of GPL, and is thus prohibited by GPL. I don't follow you there. Why the exception you mention (selling computers with Linux preinstalled) is indeed a exception and not the rule? It's the only case i can think of right now, that allows to distribute GPLed software inside hardware for profit, because you're making profit out of the hardware not the software. As I see it, where it really matters, LS is Open Source and Free Software, whatever the FSF, the OSI or anyone else says. No matter how it is worded, the only freedom the LS authors are trying to keep from you is the one to make a direct commercial profit of their hard work without giving back to the community, with seems to me more than fair enough and quite worthy of openishness and freeishness. Everything i'm saying is that the same thing is already covered by GPL and their exception is in fact a valid intepretation of the GPL. Marek ___ Linux-audio-dev mailing list Linux-audio-dev@lists.linuxaudio.org http://lists.linuxaudio.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-audio-dev
Re: [LAD] [OT] LinuxSampler and GPL - some clarifications
On Sun, 2008-01-27 at 14:37 +0100, Marek wrote: On Jan 27, 2008 1:19 PM, Luis Garrido [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 1. usage of a computer program licensed under the terms of GPL in a hardware product, whether modified or not, is not a distribution of a computer program licensed under the terms of GPL, and is thus prohibited by GPL. I don't follow you there. Why the exception you mention (selling computers with Linux preinstalled) is indeed a exception and not the rule? It's the only case i can think of right now, that allows to distribute GPLed software inside hardware for profit, because you're making profit out of the hardware not the software. The Tivo, several routers and other appliances ... -- Thorsten Wilms thorwil's design for free software: http://thorwil.wordpress.com/ ___ Linux-audio-dev mailing list Linux-audio-dev@lists.linuxaudio.org http://lists.linuxaudio.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-audio-dev
Re: [LAD] [OT] LinuxSampler and GPL - some clarifications
On Jan 27, 2008 2:52 PM, Thorsten Wilms [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Sun, 2008-01-27 at 14:37 +0100, Marek wrote: On Jan 27, 2008 1:19 PM, Luis Garrido [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 1. usage of a computer program licensed under the terms of GPL in a hardware product, whether modified or not, is not a distribution of a computer program licensed under the terms of GPL, and is thus prohibited by GPL. I don't follow you there. Why the exception you mention (selling computers with Linux preinstalled) is indeed a exception and not the rule? It's the only case i can think of right now, that allows to distribute GPLed software inside hardware for profit, because you're making profit out of the hardware not the software. The Tivo, several routers and other appliances ... If i were the copyright holder i would only allow it under a different license, and charge for it. Let's put it this way: Can you ditch Linux installed on a computer you just bought and install a different OS on that comuter along with applications? Yes. Can you install a different sw on your router which uses GPLed software? No. The thing is that in case of a router the sofware that is licensed under the GPL represents a substantial part of the product, whereas in case of a computer it does not. Marek -- Thorsten Wilms thorwil's design for free software: http://thorwil.wordpress.com/ ___ Linux-audio-dev mailing list Linux-audio-dev@lists.linuxaudio.org http://lists.linuxaudio.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-audio-dev ___ Linux-audio-dev mailing list Linux-audio-dev@lists.linuxaudio.org http://lists.linuxaudio.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-audio-dev
Re: [LAD] [OT] LinuxSampler and GPL - some clarifications
Il giorno dom, 27/01/2008 alle 15.58 +0100, Marek ha scritto: Can you install a different sw on your router which uses GPLed software? No. Why not (if you purchase a valid license, I mean)? ___ Linux-audio-dev mailing list Linux-audio-dev@lists.linuxaudio.org http://lists.linuxaudio.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-audio-dev
Re: [LAD] [OT] LinuxSampler and GPL - some clarifications
Can you install a different sw on your router which uses GPLed software? No. Yes you can. That's what I did with my router. I replaced the Linux based firmware with a community developed firmware which is based on Linux, too. Although the manufacturer doesn't support it. There has been a lot of hardware where GPLed firmware is a substantial part of the product. Those include the aforementioned Internet routers but also navigation systems, professional mixing consoles or even synthesizers. (e.g. Yamaha's Motif XS). As long as the manufacturer provides the source of all GPLed software there's nothing wrong with that. Neither with GPL 2 nor GPL 3. But your argument is not invalid at all. In deed it's the reason why the so called Tivo clause was included into the GPL 3. It disallows manufacturers to prevent users to replace GPLed software on the device with other software. This is what the FSF has to say about it (http://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/quick-guide-gplv3.html): We update the GPL to protect its copyleft from being undermined by legal or technological developments. The most recent version protects users from three recent threats: * Tivoization: Some companies have created various different kinds of devices that run GPLed software, and then rigged the hardware so that they can change the software that's running, but you cannot. If a device can run arbitrary software, it's a general-purpose computer, and its owner should control what it does. When a device thwarts you from doing that, we call that tivoization. Yours sincerely, Dennis Schulmeister -- Dennis Schulmeister - Schifferstr. 1 - 76189 Karlsruhe - Germany Tel: +49 721/5978883 - Mob: +49 152/01994400 - eMail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Now moved to the corridor: Hermes! (http://ncc-1701a.homelinux.net) (mostly German) http://www.windows3.de - http://www.denchris.de http://www.audiominds.com - http://www.motagator.net/bands/65 GunPG KeyID: B8382C97 On Sun, 2008-01-27 at 16:08 +0100, Alberto Botti wrote: Il giorno dom, 27/01/2008 alle 15.58 +0100, Marek ha scritto: Can you install a different sw on your router which uses GPLed software? No. Why not (if you purchase a valid license, I mean)? ___ Linux-audio-dev mailing list Linux-audio-dev@lists.linuxaudio.org http://lists.linuxaudio.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-audio-dev ___ Linux-audio-dev mailing list Linux-audio-dev@lists.linuxaudio.org http://lists.linuxaudio.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-audio-dev
Re: [LAD] Prototyping algorithms and ideas
On Thu, 24 Jan 2008, Albert Graef wrote: Kjetil S. Matheussen wrote: If you _really_ like functional programming and aren't afraid to learn a really different syntax, faust might probably be a very good alternative. I don't think you'll get the kind of tight interactive development environment with it as the other systems though. ie. you have to write code, compile up, run test, etc., while in the other systems, you can just write code and test directly. That's true, I'm the first one to admit that as I already use the Faust/Pd combination in courses, and the students complain about this all the time. ;-) We definitely need to work on that. This might need some cooperation from Pd (right now, Pd doesn't seem to like reloading externals on the fly, at least I haven't figured that out yet). The Pd/Q interface works much better in that respect since it already allows hot-swapping the running Q script, and you can trigger that, e.g., from Emacs. A similar trick could be done with Faust plugins, too, by making a generic Faust external which just acts as a container, and loads the real plugin on its own behalf. CLAM is supposed to offer nice Faust integration (via LADSPA) already, but I haven't tried it yet. I'm looking forward to use that combination in one of my next audio programming courses, though. CLM and snd are also nice for prototyping purposes, of course, as are all the others mentioned in this thread. But for me the special thing about Faust is that it's purely functional to boot and has a formal semantics. Your programs read like mathematical specifications, and that's what they are. I won't even mention the expression syntax, as I don't want to invite the 5625342th parens-versus-infix flamefest. Oops, now I did it. :) Faust isn't perfect either. For one thing, it still lacks multirate processing. And my pet peeve: the lack of a unary minus operator. ;-) What an interesting thread. Keep it going. :) Okay. :-) The second problem (besides its lack of interactivity) I have about faust is that is purely functional. I have programmed lots of code in purely functional style, and I like it very much, so thats not the issue. But, I feel that being forced to work in one paradigm gives me less possibilities. For example, when I made the san dysth softsynth, I thought in imperative terms, a sort of state machine where a set of variables change value for each sample. In an imperative languages, its straight forward to make such a routine, but in purely functional languages the code must be transformed first. And doing that tranformation can be very hard, even impossible, if you quite don't know how your dsp function is supposed to work yet. When I actually implemented san dysth, I did a lot of trying and failing before eventually getting something which sounded somewhat okay. Its not a great synth mathematic-vice, and I don't know very well what I'm doing regarding signal processing. But if I hadn't had a programming environment which supports imperative operators, there would most likely never have been a san dysth softsynth at all. So I may think that for a person who have a more experimental approach to signal processing, faust isn't a good choice, at least not for prototyping. Well, after being finished writing the softh synth I made block diagrams of the signal processing routine: http://www.notam02.no/~kjetism/sandysth/ so I would probably not have that much a problem writing san dysth in faust now. But the original implementation worked (and still works) like this: func get_one_sample: if val = -1 inc_addval=true elseif val = 1 inc_addval = false elseif addval max-add-val periodcounter = period inc_addval = false elseif addval -max-add-val periodcounter = period inc_addval = true elseif 0 == (--periodcounter) periodcounter = period inc_addval = not inc_addval drunk-change = random( max-drunk-change ) addval = filter( das_filter, inc-addval == true ? drunk-change : -drunk-change ) val += addval return val out( vol * src( sr, rate, get_one_sample) ) (src is a resampler function) It would be interesting to see how the routine would look like in faust, if you have the time. :-) (I think it should be a straight forward job though when looking at the block diagrams on the san dysth homepage.) ___ Linux-audio-dev mailing list Linux-audio-dev@lists.linuxaudio.org http://lists.linuxaudio.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-audio-dev
Re: [LAD] [OT] LinuxSampler and GPL - some clarifications
Hi, On Sun, Jan 27, 2008 at 08:14:29PM +0100, Marek wrote: On Jan 27, 2008 6:10 PM, Forest Bond [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Sun, Jan 27, 2008 at 02:29:33PM +0100, Marek wrote: Note the the GPL is an extremely restrictive license(to the advantage of the copyright holder), and numerous articles have been published, and numerous statements from various companies have been issued regarding this very issue. This is FUD, plain and simple. What, do you work for Wasabi [1][2], or something? FUD for who? For those who make profit out of work of others? According to the FSF: Free software is a matter of the users' freedom to run, copy, distribute, study, change and improve the software. More precisely, it refers to four kinds of freedom, for the users of the software: * The freedom to run the program, for any purpose (freedom 0). ... Profit is one such purpose, and I believe that Stallman himself would defend it vigorously. Are you also making money out of work of others? Who isn't? All work is based on the work of others. If so then this is FUD for you indeed. If you are a copyright holder then you should know how the GPL protects your work. Agreed. But your interpretation of the GPL is one that I've certainly never seen. -Forest -- Forest Bond http://www.alittletooquiet.net signature.asc Description: Digital signature ___ Linux-audio-dev mailing list Linux-audio-dev@lists.linuxaudio.org http://lists.linuxaudio.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-audio-dev
Re: [LAD] [OT] LinuxSampler and GPL - some clarifications
Hi, On Sun, Jan 27, 2008 at 08:14:29PM +0100, Marek wrote: If you are a copyright holder then you should know how the GPL protects your work. I should also point out that the GPL was created to protect users, not to protect the ownership rights of developers. Certainly the intent of the GPL is not in line with your interpretation. If your interpretation is correct, it is most certainly a loop-hole. -Forest -- Forest Bond http://www.alittletooquiet.net signature.asc Description: Digital signature ___ Linux-audio-dev mailing list Linux-audio-dev@lists.linuxaudio.org http://lists.linuxaudio.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-audio-dev
Re: [LAD] [OT] LinuxSampler and GPL - some clarifications
On Jan 27, 2008 9:40 PM, Forest Bond [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi, On Sun, Jan 27, 2008 at 08:14:29PM +0100, Marek wrote: On Jan 27, 2008 6:10 PM, Forest Bond [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Sun, Jan 27, 2008 at 02:29:33PM +0100, Marek wrote: Note the the GPL is an extremely restrictive license(to the advantage of the copyright holder), and numerous articles have been published, and numerous statements from various companies have been issued regarding this very issue. This is FUD, plain and simple. What, do you work for Wasabi [1][2], or something? FUD for who? For those who make profit out of work of others? According to the FSF: Free software is a matter of the users' freedom to run, copy, distribute, study, change and improve the software. More precisely, it refers to four kinds of freedom, for the users of the software: * The freedom to run the program, for any purpose (freedom 0). ... Profit is one such purpose, and I believe that Stallman himself would defend it vigorously. Again, the freedom to RUN the program for any purpose. Suppose i'm a musician, and i am making a living with music, every night i play piano at the xyz piano bar, i'm using LinuxSampler on my laptop and a masterkeyboard. Which means i'm *running* LinuxSampler for the purpose of making profit with it. Are you also making money out of work of others? Who isn't? All work is based on the work of others. I'm talking about taking advantage of others work with little effort and without giving back. If so then this is FUD for you indeed. If you are a copyright holder then you should know how the GPL protects your work. Agreed. But your interpretation of the GPL is one that I've certainly never seen. You have seen it now :) Marek ___ Linux-audio-dev mailing list Linux-audio-dev@lists.linuxaudio.org http://lists.linuxaudio.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-audio-dev
Re: [LAD] [OT] LinuxSampler and GPL - some clarifications
On Jan 27, 2008 9:45 PM, Forest Bond [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi, On Sun, Jan 27, 2008 at 08:14:29PM +0100, Marek wrote: If you are a copyright holder then you should know how the GPL protects your work. I should also point out that the GPL was created to protect users, not to protect the ownership rights of developers. Are you serious about this??? How about not using a license at all? Having a public domain code would protect users in the most elegant way - do whatever you want with it. Certainly the intent of the GPL is not in line with your interpretation. If your interpretation is correct, it is most certainly a loop-hole. The GPL is about freedom to study, modify and run the code in modified and unmodified form and to *give* it to others if you wish so. It even allows you to charge for distribution. It's not about charity for middlesized or big companies. What's so not comprehensable about it? Marek ___ Linux-audio-dev mailing list Linux-audio-dev@lists.linuxaudio.org http://lists.linuxaudio.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-audio-dev
Re: [LAD] [OT] LinuxSampler and GPL - some clarifications
On Jan 27, 2008 9:59 PM, Marek [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: But let's have a look at these statements from the GPL: ...if you distribute copies of such a program, whether gratis or for a fee... ... You may charge a fee for the physical act of transferring a copy... 1. Basically You may charge a fee for the physical act of transferring a copy... translates to You may *only* charge a fee for the physical act of transferring a copy... as the GPL doesn't state that you may charge for the computer program or any other services related to it other than distribution and providing warranty. Otherwise such statement made by the GPL would be *invalid*. This interpretation is at odds with the FSF's own interpretation. Check http://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/gpl-faq.html#DoesTheGPLAllowMoney to get it directly from the gnu's mouth, so to speak. As for the original topic: under the GPLv2, anyone can build hardware around a piece of GPLed software as long as they offer to give the full source, including any modifications they made, to anyone asking for it, at cost. Under the GPLv3 the same thing holds, with the additional stipulation that if the hardware is field-upgradeable, anyone must be able to do it (e.g. if the device checks for a cryptographic signature before executing the code, the seller must provide the required key along with the source). The restrictions desired by the LS crew therefore do require additional terms beyond the GPL, and the resulting license is not compatible with the GPL. These are undisputed facts. The one mildly interesting question is whether this state of affairs makes LS non-free; reinterpreting a license it doesn't even use is not going to clarify that. Daniel. ___ Linux-audio-dev mailing list Linux-audio-dev@lists.linuxaudio.org http://lists.linuxaudio.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-audio-dev
Re: [LAD] [OT] LinuxSampler and GPL - some clarifications
On Jan 27, 2008 11:21 PM, Dennis Schulmeister [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: As the GPL doesn't differentiate between source-code level or binary-code level, it *includes* both cases and so a separate application not capable of functioning as a standalone application and communicating with another licensed under the terms of GPL is a *derived* work. Let's assume a Linux based operating system. Any application compiled for that system needs the Linux kernel to be present in order to run. Without the application cannot run. But does this render the application a derived work? Do most of opensource applications run on other operating systems such as windows and MacOSX? And i mean, including KDE running on windows and MacOSX? Most GNOME apps? Most web based tehcnologies? Jack? Ardour? LinuxSampler? Do they, in combination with Linux and special Hardware form a special product in your case? Let's look at a real world case(the best one i could think about at the moment), suppose you manufacture shoes that you distribute via FedEx. Who is charging for distribution? Who is charging for the shoes? As you can see, charging for distribution of a computer program and charging for distribution of a computer program are 2 different things. I would be charging for distribution. FedEx would bill me a small amount for their service. I would charge that amount plus a little bit for additional costs to the customer. You're nitpicking. Who gets the money for the shoes? Who gets the money for the distribution? Marek ___ Linux-audio-dev mailing list Linux-audio-dev@lists.linuxaudio.org http://lists.linuxaudio.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-audio-dev
Re: [LAD] [OT] LinuxSampler and GPL - some clarifications
On Jan 27, 2008 10:44 PM, Daniel Schmitt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Jan 27, 2008 9:59 PM, Marek [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: But let's have a look at these statements from the GPL: ...if you distribute copies of such a program, whether gratis or for a fee... ... You may charge a fee for the physical act of transferring a copy... 1. Basically You may charge a fee for the physical act of transferring a copy... translates to You may *only* charge a fee for the physical act of transferring a copy... as the GPL doesn't state that you may charge for the computer program or any other services related to it other than distribution and providing warranty. Otherwise such statement made by the GPL would be *invalid*. This interpretation is at odds with the FSF's own interpretation. Check http://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/gpl-faq.html#DoesTheGPLAllowMoney to get it directly from the gnu's mouth, so to speak. Show me one example in GPLv2 which would tell me that i can charge for *a copy*, not for *distributing a copy*(!). The FSF clearly uses wrong wording (see my FedEx example) because they are always talking about encouraging *distribution* http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/selling.html: Quote: -- Selling -- Free Software Many people believe that the spirit of the GNU project is that you should not charge *money for distributing copies* of software, or that you should charge as little as possible — just enough to cover the cost. Actually we encourage people who *redistribute free software* to charge as much as they wish or can. If this seems surprising to you, please read on. Please note : Selling software != Distributing for charge and there are *many* ways to sell software (even while not distributing it at all). As for the original topic: under the GPLv2, anyone can build hardware around a piece of GPLed software as long as they offer to give the full source, including any modifications they made, to anyone asking for it, at cost. Nope. If the software represents a substantial part of the hw based product, you are not charging for distribution of the software, you are charging for the entire *product * which would be useless without the software. If there are software *alternatives* that are easily installable on your hardware and you chose to prefer one of them, then you're only distributing the sw along with the hw you are selling. The restrictions desired by the LS crew therefore do require additional terms beyond the GPL, and the resulting license is not compatible with the GPL. These are undisputed facts. Undisputed facts? :) Search for we believe in - http://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/gpl-faq.html The one mildly interesting question is whether this state of affairs makes LS non-free; reinterpreting a license it doesn't even use is not going to clarify that. It's free for users to study, modify the code and run the code for any purpose, to distribute it to others, whether modified or not. And see the coincidence, these rules apply to LinuxSampler whether with or without exception. GPL is not public domain, it's not charity for midsize or big companies. In general, the GPL enforces third parties to *give back*. If you can't give back code, you can give back money(the only exception being, you're encouraged to distribute, for that sake you can earn a few bucks if you're able to). Marek ___ Linux-audio-dev mailing list Linux-audio-dev@lists.linuxaudio.org http://lists.linuxaudio.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-audio-dev
Re: [LAD] [OT] LinuxSampler and GPL - some clarifications
On Jan 27, 2008 10:56 PM, Forest Bond [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi, On Sun, Jan 27, 2008 at 10:23:21PM +0100, Marek wrote: On Jan 27, 2008 9:40 PM, Forest Bond [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Sun, Jan 27, 2008 at 08:14:29PM +0100, Marek wrote: If so then this is FUD for you indeed. If you are a copyright holder then you should know how the GPL protects your work. Agreed. But your interpretation of the GPL is one that I've certainly never seen. You have seen it now :) Well, your interpretation differs greatly from that of the FSF (as well as the vast majority of the GPL camp). I wish you luck evangelizing it. Define vast majority of the GPL camp. Give me the facts, give me the links. Marek ___ Linux-audio-dev mailing list Linux-audio-dev@lists.linuxaudio.org http://lists.linuxaudio.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-audio-dev
Re: [LAD] [OT] LinuxSampler and GPL - some clarifications
Hi, On Sun, Jan 27, 2008 at 11:49:48PM +0100, Marek wrote: On Jan 27, 2008 10:56 PM, Forest Bond [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Well, your interpretation differs greatly from that of the FSF (as well as the vast majority of the GPL camp). I wish you luck evangelizing it. Define vast majority of the GPL camp. Give me the facts, give me the links. My statement was based on the assumption that the vast majority of the GPL camp tends to agree with the FSF when interpreting the GPL. The FSF's position is clearly stated here: http://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/gpl-faq.html#DoesTheGPLAllowMoney I don't see how this conversation can really go much further. You disagree with the FSF as to how the GPL should be interpreted. I don't see why your views on this should be held in higher regard than the FSF's. Have you ever applied the GPL to your own work? What is your interest in this? -Forest -- Forest Bond http://www.alittletooquiet.net signature.asc Description: Digital signature ___ Linux-audio-dev mailing list Linux-audio-dev@lists.linuxaudio.org http://lists.linuxaudio.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-audio-dev
Re: [LAD] [OT] LinuxSampler and GPL - some clarifications
On Sunday 27 January 2008, Marek wrote: On Jan 27, 2008 10:56 PM, Forest Bond [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi, On Sun, Jan 27, 2008 at 10:23:21PM +0100, Marek wrote: On Jan 27, 2008 9:40 PM, Forest Bond [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Sun, Jan 27, 2008 at 08:14:29PM +0100, Marek wrote: If so then this is FUD for you indeed. If you are a copyright holder then you should know how the GPL protects your work. Agreed. But your interpretation of the GPL is one that I've certainly never seen. You have seen it now :) Well, your interpretation differs greatly from that of the FSF (as well as the vast majority of the GPL camp). I wish you luck evangelizing it. Define vast majority of the GPL camp. Give me the facts, give me the links. Marek Tell ya what, Marek. Take your proposal to the FSF. Don't take the word of people who have actually read the GPL's words for it, so get it from the horses mouth so to speak. You obviously aren't about to believe any of us anyway so quit harassing these good folks over it. -- Cheers, Gene There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order. -Ed Howdershelt (Author) Consultants are mystical people who ask a company for a number and then give it back to them. ___ Linux-audio-dev mailing list Linux-audio-dev@lists.linuxaudio.org http://lists.linuxaudio.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-audio-dev
Re: [LAD] [OT] LinuxSampler and GPL - some clarifications
On Jan 27, 2008 11:41 PM, Marek [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Show me one example in GPLv2 which would tell me that i can charge for *a copy*, not for *distributing a copy*(!). The FSF clearly uses wrong wording (see my FedEx example) because they are always talking about encouraging *distribution* http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/selling.html: Quote: -- Selling -- Free Software Many people believe that the spirit of the GNU project is that you should not charge *money for distributing copies* of software, or that you should charge as little as possible — just enough to cover the cost. Actually we encourage people who *redistribute free software* to charge as much as they wish or can. If this seems surprising to you, please read on. Please note : Selling software != Distributing for charge and there are *many* ways to sell software (even while not distributing it at all). If you had taken their advice and read on, you would have discovered that they contradict exactly that statement a few paragraphs further down on the page. To quote: The term selling software can be confusing too Strictly speaking, selling means trading goods for money. Selling a copy of a free program is legitimate, and we encourage it. However, when people think of selling software, they usually imagine doing it the way most companies do it: making the software proprietary rather than free. So unless you're going to draw distinctions carefully, the way this article does, we suggest it is better to avoid using the term selling software and choose some other wording instead. For example, you could say distributing free software for a fee—that is unambiguous. So much for your wording claims. Additionally, if you want real-world examples of hardware devices being sold with GPLed software in them, legally, check http://www.linksys.com/gpl/ Is there anything left to discuss? Daniel. ___ Linux-audio-dev mailing list Linux-audio-dev@lists.linuxaudio.org http://lists.linuxaudio.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-audio-dev
Re: [LAD] [OT] LinuxSampler and GPL - some clarifications
Hi, On Mon, Jan 28, 2008 at 12:19:22AM +0100, Marek wrote: On Jan 28, 2008 12:07 AM, Forest Bond [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The FSF's position is clearly stated here: http://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/gpl-faq.html#DoesTheGPLAllowMoney The FSF uses bad wording, see my other mail about this. They talk about charging for distribution of sw. True, but given that most commercial distributors do not deliver an invoice with separate line items for software and distribution, the practical distinction appears to be nil. I suspect this is intentional, especially given the FSF's repeated use bad wording that is consistent with this implication. Have you ever applied the GPL to your own work? What is your interest in this? No, and as a lawyer i seek to strenghten fair use and appropriate compensation for the use of GPLed software, whether in form of code or money, for the original copyright holders. You are interested in increasing both users' and developers' respective rights? That sounds difficult. Moreover, your goals sound odd for a lawyer without a client. What free software developers to you currently represent? Is your practice based in the US, Europe, or elsewhere? -Forest -- Forest Bond http://www.alittletooquiet.net signature.asc Description: Digital signature ___ Linux-audio-dev mailing list Linux-audio-dev@lists.linuxaudio.org http://lists.linuxaudio.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-audio-dev
Re: [LAD] [OT] LinuxSampler and GPL - some clarifications
On Jan 28, 2008 12:37 AM, Daniel Schmitt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Jan 27, 2008 11:41 PM, Marek [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Show me one example in GPLv2 which would tell me that i can charge for *a copy*, not for *distributing a copy*(!). The FSF clearly uses wrong wording (see my FedEx example) because they are always talking about encouraging *distribution* http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/selling.html: Quote: -- Selling -- Free Software Many people believe that the spirit of the GNU project is that you should not charge *money for distributing copies* of software, or that you should charge as little as possible — just enough to cover the cost. Actually we encourage people who *redistribute free software* to charge as much as they wish or can. If this seems surprising to you, please read on. Please note : Selling software != Distributing for charge and there are *many* ways to sell software (even while not distributing it at all). If you had taken their advice and read on, you would have discovered that they contradict exactly that statement a few paragraphs further down on the page. To quote: The term selling software can be confusing too Strictly speaking, selling means trading goods for money. Selling a copy of a free program is legitimate, and we encourage it. However, when people think of selling software, they usually imagine doing it the way most companies do it: making the software proprietary rather than free. So unless you're going to draw distinctions carefully, the way this article does, we suggest it is better to avoid using the term selling software and choose some other wording instead. For example, you could say distributing free software for a fee—that is unambiguous. So much for your wording claims. Really? What they are trying to tell you is: If you take a piece of sw, and offer it to someone else for a fee and at the same time that someone else is able to get it from someone else for free legally, what is it that you're doing? I think the best word for describing it is - distributing? ;) Hence - unambigious? You're NOT SELLING the software because it's FREE? Like getting your goods via FedEx or let someone else fetch it for you so you save a few bucks? So it doesn't contradict my claim, and in *fact* they contradict themselves *because* they use the wording sell copies *in the FAQ* and they use it as the name of their selling free software article, but at the same time they tell you that you'd better use distributing free software for a fee which is unambiguous.? So much for your quote. Additionally, if you want real-world examples of hardware devices being sold with GPLed software in them, legally, check http://www.linksys.com/gpl/ 1. Who is the copyright holder in their case? 2. Is their code a derived work? 3. Does the software represent a substantial part of the product? Is there anything left to discuss? No. Marek ___ Linux-audio-dev mailing list Linux-audio-dev@lists.linuxaudio.org http://lists.linuxaudio.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-audio-dev
Re: [LAD] [OT] LinuxSampler and GPL - some clarifications
Moreover, your goals sound odd for a lawyer without a client. What free software developers to you currently represent? What does that matter? You mean someone should pay me for this? I understand that you're doing this not for a certain client but for free software developers and users in general. That's good. The question about your location seems valid though. Because as you have noticed most people who participated in that discussion share a somewhat different opinion of what it means to distribute free software. Especially if the software is an essential part of a hardware product. Yours sincerely, Dennis Schulmeister -- Dennis Schulmeister - Schifferstr. 1 - 76189 Karlsruhe - Germany Tel: +49 721/5978883 - Mob: +49 152/01994400 - eMail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Now moved to the corridor: Hermes! (http://ncc-1701a.homelinux.net) (mostly German) http://www.windows3.de - http://www.denchris.de http://www.audiominds.com - http://www.motagator.net/bands/65 GunPG KeyID: B8382C97 On Mon, 2008-01-28 at 00:57 +0100, Marek wrote: On Jan 28, 2008 12:51 AM, Forest Bond [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi, On Mon, Jan 28, 2008 at 12:19:22AM +0100, Marek wrote: On Jan 28, 2008 12:07 AM, Forest Bond [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The FSF's position is clearly stated here: http://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/gpl-faq.html#DoesTheGPLAllowMoney The FSF uses bad wording, see my other mail about this. They talk about charging for distribution of sw. True, but given that most commercial distributors do not deliver an invoice with separate line items for software and distribution, the practical distinction appears to be nil. ? I suspect this is intentional, especially given the FSF's repeated use bad wording that is consistent with this implication. I'm sorry, I don't understand. Have you ever applied the GPL to your own work? What is your interest in this? No, and as a lawyer i seek to strenghten fair use and appropriate compensation for the use of GPLed software, whether in form of code or money, for the original copyright holders. You are interested in increasing both users' and developers' respective rights? That sounds difficult. Moreover, your goals sound odd for a lawyer without a client. What free software developers to you currently represent? What does that matter? You mean someone should pay me for this? Marek ___ Linux-audio-dev mailing list Linux-audio-dev@lists.linuxaudio.org http://lists.linuxaudio.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-audio-dev ___ Linux-audio-dev mailing list Linux-audio-dev@lists.linuxaudio.org http://lists.linuxaudio.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-audio-dev
Re: [LAD] [OT] LinuxSampler and GPL - some clarifications
On Jan 28, 2008 1:27 AM, Dennis Schulmeister [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Moreover, your goals sound odd for a lawyer without a client. What free software developers to you currently represent? What does that matter? You mean someone should pay me for this? I understand that you're doing this not for a certain client but for free software developers and users in general. That's good. The question about your location seems valid though. Because as you have noticed most people who participated in that discussion share a somewhat different opinion of what it means to distribute free software. Especially if the software is an essential part of a hardware product. I think a more valid question would be - are those people open source developers? Because if they are not and want to make business with GPLed software as third parties I can understand their fear. :) Marek ___ Linux-audio-dev mailing list Linux-audio-dev@lists.linuxaudio.org http://lists.linuxaudio.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-audio-dev
Re: [LAD] [OT] LinuxSampler and GPL - some clarifications
On Jan 28, 2008 1:21 AM, Marek [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hence - unambigious? You're NOT SELLING the software because it's FREE? Like getting your goods via FedEx or let someone else fetch it for you so you save a few bucks? So it doesn't contradict my claim, and in *fact* they contradict themselves *because* they use the wording sell copies *in the FAQ* and they use it as the name of their selling free software article, but at the same time they tell you that you'd better use distributing free software for a fee which is unambiguous.? Which part of selling a copy of a free program is legitimate and we encourage it is causing you difficulties? The paragraph I quoted is trying to guard against exactly your misunderstanding of the situation. Additionally, if you want real-world examples of hardware devices being sold with GPLed software in them, legally, check http://www.linksys.com/gpl/ 1. Who is the copyright holder in their case? In most cases, Linus Torvalds and a cast of thousands, i.e. the kernel team. Also, the busybox people, who are well known for caring about their license a lot. See their comments on this in the last paragraph of http://www.busybox.net/license.html (A Good Example). 2. Is their code a derived work? It is customized for their hardware, yes. 3. Does the software represent a substantial part of the product? By your own earlier example, yes. This is networking equipment - routers and the like - not general-purpose computers. Have fun, Daniel. ___ Linux-audio-dev mailing list Linux-audio-dev@lists.linuxaudio.org http://lists.linuxaudio.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-audio-dev
Re: [LAD] [OT] LinuxSampler and GPL - some clarifications
Hi, On Mon, Jan 28, 2008 at 12:57:27AM +0100, Marek wrote: On Jan 28, 2008 12:51 AM, Forest Bond [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Mon, Jan 28, 2008 at 12:19:22AM +0100, Marek wrote: On Jan 28, 2008 12:07 AM, Forest Bond [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The FSF's position is clearly stated here: http://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/gpl-faq.html#DoesTheGPLAllowMoney The FSF uses bad wording, see my other mail about this. They talk about charging for distribution of sw. True, but given that most commercial distributors do not deliver an invoice with separate line items for software and distribution, the practical distinction appears to be nil. ? When I pay $5 for a CD with software, it is not obvious to me whether I am paying for distribution or paying for the software itself. Thus, from the purchaser's perspective, the two are indistinguishable. This makes it difficult, if not impossible, to place restrictions on what compensation is allowed. I suspect this is intentional, especially given the FSF's repeated use bad wording that is consistent with this implication. I'm sorry, I don't understand. I'm saying that the FSF is well aware of the implications of their license (that users can pay for GPL software), and is not simply complicit. Rather, it would seem that the FSF is not opposed to the selling of GPL software. Have you ever applied the GPL to your own work? What is your interest in this? No, and as a lawyer i seek to strenghten fair use and appropriate compensation for the use of GPLed software, whether in form of code or money, for the original copyright holders. You are interested in increasing both users' and developers' respective rights? That sounds difficult. Moreover, your goals sound odd for a lawyer without a client. What free software developers to you currently represent? What does that matter? You mean someone should pay me for this? If you know someone that wants to pay you, that is certainly his right to do so. I'm simply trying to understand your motivation for championing a very unorthodox interpretation of the GPL. Specifically, it is not clear to me who, if anyone, would benefit from your interpretation. It seems like everyone would lose: users have fewer freedoms to use the software (they can't sell it), and developers get less commercial interest in their software. Is that not a problem? -Forest -- Forest Bond http://www.alittletooquiet.net signature.asc Description: Digital signature ___ Linux-audio-dev mailing list Linux-audio-dev@lists.linuxaudio.org http://lists.linuxaudio.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-audio-dev
Re: [LAD] [OT] LinuxSampler and GPL - some clarifications
On Jan 28, 2008 3:04 AM, Daniel Schmitt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Jan 28, 2008 1:21 AM, Marek [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hence - unambigious? You're NOT SELLING the software because it's FREE? Like getting your goods via FedEx or let someone else fetch it for you so you save a few bucks? So it doesn't contradict my claim, and in *fact* they contradict themselves *because* they use the wording sell copies *in the FAQ* and they use it as the name of their selling free software article, but at the same time they tell you that you'd better use distributing free software for a fee which is unambiguous.? Which part of selling a copy of a free program is legitimate and we encourage it is causing you difficulties? 1. there is a difference between the copyright holder and third parties. For example, the copyright holder is allowed to sell his software and in some case he doesn't even distribute it by selling it. 2. The FedEx example should demonstrate why the FSF chose distributing for fee. Everytime someone restricts others to download free software in order to charge for it, he makes the software a little bit less free. (Doesn't matter if you can get it somewhere else, some people dont even know for example). So in order to keep your software free from legal point of view, you say that the person in question is charging for the physical act of transferring a copy not for the software itself. In fact he is indeed doing so, he takes the software from someone and offers to someone else for a fee, he distributes. The paragraph I quoted is trying to guard against exactly your misunderstanding of the situation. You haven't provided a single explanation as to why my claims condratict the FSF claim, other than pasting a paragaph for which i have already given an explanation. Which leads me to think that you are not a lawyer and you're just being arrogant. Additionally, if you want real-world examples of hardware devices being sold with GPLed software in them, legally, check http://www.linksys.com/gpl/ 1. Who is the copyright holder in their case? In most cases, Linus Torvalds and a cast of thousands, i.e. the kernel team. Also, the busybox people, who are well known for caring about their license a lot. See their comments on this in the last paragraph of http://www.busybox.net/license.html (A Good Example). It's just their less restrictive interpretation of the GPL to their disadvantage. If they call implementing busybox inside a router (or whatever embedded device) distributing of their own software then there is nothing i can do about it at the moment. 2. Is their code a derived work? It is customized for their hardware, yes. 3. Does the software represent a substantial part of the product? By your own earlier example, yes. This is networking equipment - routers and the like - not general-purpose computers. Have fun, Well, then they clearly violate the GPL. And it wouldn't hurt Linksys to pay for a separate license would it? In order to fuel development of the software components they use in their products? Have fun. :) Marek ___ Linux-audio-dev mailing list Linux-audio-dev@lists.linuxaudio.org http://lists.linuxaudio.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-audio-dev
Re: [LAD] [OT] LinuxSampler and GPL - some clarifications
On Jan 28, 2008 3:40 AM, Forest Bond [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi, On Mon, Jan 28, 2008 at 12:57:27AM +0100, Marek wrote: On Jan 28, 2008 12:51 AM, Forest Bond [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Mon, Jan 28, 2008 at 12:19:22AM +0100, Marek wrote: On Jan 28, 2008 12:07 AM, Forest Bond [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The FSF's position is clearly stated here: http://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/gpl-faq.html#DoesTheGPLAllowMoney The FSF uses bad wording, see my other mail about this. They talk about charging for distribution of sw. True, but given that most commercial distributors do not deliver an invoice with separate line items for software and distribution, the practical distinction appears to be nil. ? When I pay $5 for a CD with software, it is not obvious to me whether I am paying for distribution or paying for the software itself. Thus, from the purchaser's perspective, the two are indistinguishable. And he should not be dealing with this issue. Also, the problem of compensating authors, and copyright holders from distribution fees is another problem which has not been addressed yet, and is not addressed by the GPL. It's quite sad to see FSF encouraging distributors to charge whatever they want, since there is no compensation mechansim existent.This issue has already been addressed in e.g. music industry(performing rights organization created and controlled by composers, songwriters and music publishers in roder to seek compensation for performance and distribution etc.) The solution would be Voluntary Collective Licensing. This makes it difficult, if not impossible, to place restrictions on what compensation is allowed. I suspect this is intentional, especially given the FSF's repeated use bad wording that is consistent with this implication. I'm sorry, I don't understand. I'm saying that the FSF is well aware of the implications of their license (that users can pay for GPL software), and is not simply complicit. Rather, it would seem that the FSF is not opposed to the selling of GPL software. No, they always mean distribution for fee. And even if they didn't, the GPL does, which is what counts afterall :) Have you ever applied the GPL to your own work? What is your interest in this? No, and as a lawyer i seek to strenghten fair use and appropriate compensation for the use of GPLed software, whether in form of code or money, for the original copyright holders. Specifically, it is not clear to me who, if anyone, would benefit from your interpretation. Developers? It seems like everyone would lose: users have fewer freedoms to use the software (they can't sell it), Seriously, is Linksys a user? Or Linksys at least tries to be the most GPL compliant company, let's pick Hartmann. and developers get less commercial interest in their software. Is that not a problem? How about this: You have 2 vendors of the same kind of software: One offers you a limited and crippled proprietary SDK (limited time or functionality or both) or you have to sign an NDA or whatever or he offers an SDK only if you pay a license. The other one is open source - you get full source code, full functionality, unlimited time to develop and you can even get enough time to market your product in order to pay for separate license from your profit if the separate license allows it. Which one is more beneficial? Besides the term Commercial interest means that the copyright holders are also included. Why would you want commercial interest in your software if you don't get anything for it, no money, no code. Maybe there are motivations besides this, i dont know of any. The interpretation doesn't touch any of these: * The freedom to run the program, for any purpose (freedom 0). ( a musician making a living with LinuxSampler) * The freedom to study how the program works, and adapt it to your needs (freedom 1). Access to the source code is a precondition for this. * The freedom to redistribute copies so you can help your neighbor (freedom 2). * The freedom to improve the program, and release your improvements to the public, so that the whole community benefits (freedom 3). Access to the source code is a precondition for this. (The other 3 freedoms are basically not about charging money in general) Now that were talking about freedom, a GPL developer should have the freedom to decide: 1. Linksys asks Can we use your software in our hardware product for free? The developer:Yes, provided that you are bound by all other terms of GPL ...Linksys:mmm okay (which would basically be another license based on GPL with the exception that you can use software in your sw/hw based product :) 2. legal Hartmann asks Can we use your software in our hardware product for free? The developer:No, we are issuing a separate one time license, which costs $1, you can modify, keep everything proprietary etc etc legal(!) Hartmann:mmm okay This has 2 benefits:
Re: [LAD] [OT] LinuxSampler and GPL - some clarifications
Hi, On Mon, Jan 28, 2008 at 04:51:34AM +0100, Marek wrote: Besides the term Commercial interest means that the copyright holders are also included. By releasing software under the terms of the GPL, authors give others the right to distribute their software for a fee without any compensation. Surely, you recognize this. Why would you want commercial interest in your software if you don't get anything for it, no money, no code. Maybe there are motivations besides this, i dont know of any. This makes me wonder how well you understand open-source developers. You are, after all, a lawyer, not a software developer. It does not surprise me in the least that you can't imagine any motivation for publishing software beyond financial compensation. -Forest -- Forest Bond http://www.alittletooquiet.net signature.asc Description: Digital signature ___ Linux-audio-dev mailing list Linux-audio-dev@lists.linuxaudio.org http://lists.linuxaudio.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-audio-dev
Re: [LAD] [OT] LinuxSampler and GPL - some clarifications
Hi, Let me try at a little summary. I'd like, for posterity's sake, to concisely characterize your views on the subject. Here goes: You think that the GPL is a terrible license from the developer's perspective. Developers should instead assign license on a per-user basis, charging more money from users that are deemed less likely to contribute back to the project. You speak of re-interpreting the GPL, but what you really want is for open-source developers to use different license terms entirely. You don't think the GPL adequately protects developers' interests. You also apparently think that most current interpretations of the GPL are largely incorrect, and everyone distributing GPL software as part of a commercial product is already violating the terms of the license. Is that correct? -Forest -- Forest Bond http://www.alittletooquiet.net signature.asc Description: Digital signature ___ Linux-audio-dev mailing list Linux-audio-dev@lists.linuxaudio.org http://lists.linuxaudio.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-audio-dev
Re: [LAD] [OT] LinuxSampler and GPL - some clarifications
On Jan 28, 2008 5:19 AM, Forest Bond [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi, Let me try at a little summary. I'd like, for posterity's sake, to concisely characterize your views on the subject. Here goes: You think that the GPL is a terrible license from the developer's perspective. The GPL is a very powerful license, which is all i wanted to show, it even includes the so called LinuxSampler exception, it's very restrictive to the advantage of oss developers yet it grants all freedoms according to FSF. Developers should instead assign license on a per-user basis, charging more money from users that are deemed less likely to contribute back to the project. Ever heard of dual licensing? You speak of re-interpreting the GPL, but what you really want is for open-source developers to use different license terms entirely. You don't think the GPL adequately protects developers' interests. A legal intepretation is something else than rewriting the license terms. You also apparently think that most current interpretations of the GPL are largely incorrect, and everyone distributing GPL software as part of a commercial product is already violating the terms of the license. Is that correct? No i think you should read my emails again. I think i said more than enough. Marek ___ Linux-audio-dev mailing list Linux-audio-dev@lists.linuxaudio.org http://lists.linuxaudio.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-audio-dev
Re: [LAD] [OT] LinuxSampler and GPL - some clarifications
On Jan 28, 2008 5:11 AM, Forest Bond [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi, On Mon, Jan 28, 2008 at 04:51:34AM +0100, Marek wrote: Besides the term Commercial interest means that the copyright holders are also included. By releasing software under the terms of the GPL, authors give others the right to distribute their software for a fee without any compensation. Surely, you recognize this. Who said this? The GPL? The GPL grants third parties the right to distribute their software for a fee. The GPL doesn't *address* compensation for distribution at all. Why would you want commercial interest in your software if you don't get anything for it, no money, no code. Maybe there are motivations besides this, i dont know of any. This makes me wonder how well you understand open-source developers. You are, after all, a lawyer, not a software developer. It does not surprise me in the least that you can't imagine any motivation for publishing software beyond financial compensation. Sounds like an insult to me. Name the motivations please. Do not mention the freedom for others to run the code for any purpose, to modify it, study it, change it to your needs, distribute to others, whether modified or not. We've been through this already. It's 100% compatible with the intepretation. If you're not seeking financial compesation, you can choose LGPL, or even a less restrictive license, or even go public domain. Either you're financially compensated in some other ways, ... or you can eat your code if it fits in your micorwave owen. Whatever. I'm fine with that. Marek ___ Linux-audio-dev mailing list Linux-audio-dev@lists.linuxaudio.org http://lists.linuxaudio.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-audio-dev
