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 ki
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
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
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 nonop
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 th
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
On Thursday 15 September 2005 12:19, Jacobo Tarrio wrote:
> 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
> > > N
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 explai
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, ac
> 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 l
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.")
Que
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,
ale
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 PROT
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 A
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 go
> 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 UNSUBSCR
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 cla
> 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
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
> 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 t
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 Micros
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 r
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
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
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
It's a Small Wel
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
26 matches
Mail list logo