On Sun, Jul 02, 2006 at 12:43:06AM +0200, Fons Adriaensen wrote:
Besides that, DR is broadcasting plain lies. There is nothing in
the Linuxsampler licence nor in that infamouse README that should
impede you using it for an album or concert you sell commercially.
He's 'broadcasting' the only
Hi all,
Problem with linuxsampler license void its all about that infamous
exception clause on the README file, that it may NOT be used in
COMMERCIAL software or hardware products without prior written
authorization by the authors.
I find this thread very interesting, and I'd like to add a
On Sun, Jul 02, 2006 at 10:49:54AM +0200, Thorsten Wilms wrote:
To me your behaviour of accusing Dave of plain lying is not
acceptable. You seem to implicate dishonesty.
I someone states as a fact and without any qualification a
certain interpretation of a text, while knowing very well that
Marc-Olivier Barre wrote:
Hi all,
Problem with linuxsampler license void its all about that infamous
exception clause on the README file, that it may NOT be used in
COMMERCIAL software or hardware products without prior written
authorization by the authors.
I find this thread very
Something from the source :
Christian Schoenebeck wrote on 9 Sept 2005:
Anyway, about the mentioned commercial exception in general: you can assume
all current tarball releases of LS (up to and including 0.3.3) to be under
pure GPL. It was already released as pure GPL and is already included
On Sat, 2006-07-01 at 14:09 +0200, Fons Adriaensen wrote:
On Sat, Jul 01, 2006 at 08:22:16AM +0200, Jens M Andreasen wrote:
Linear attack sounds OK. Given the exponential way we perceive volume,
this *is* the desired function.
That's the rationale for having exponential volume controls.
On Sun, 2006-07-02 at 08:24 -0400, Dave Phillips wrote:
Something from the source :
Christian Schoenebeck wrote on 9 Sept 2005:
Anyway, about the mentioned commercial exception in general: you can assume
all current tarball releases of LS (up to and including 0.3.3) to be under
pure
Being under DSP studying, I have accidentally met Judith C. Brown paper about
constant Q transform. An apparent thought is: constant Q transform is more
direct
way for SPL-observing rather FFT+smoothing. Is it so (I don't mean RT-apps)?
=== On Saturday 24 June 2006 19:30, Fons Adriaensen
Dave Phillips or Christian Schoenebeck wrote:
Unfortunately I haven't found an existing open source license which
would reflect those restrictions. Some even said this wouldn't be an
open source license according to definitions of XY, but personally I
think it would.
I suggest that you read
On Sat, 2006-07-01 at 15:51 -0400, Dave Robillard wrote:
On Sat, 2006-07-01 at 20:33 +0100, Bob Ham wrote:
On Sat, 2006-07-01 at 23:53 +0700, Patrick Shirkey wrote:
Dave Robillard wrote:
On Sat, 2006-07-01 at 17:43 +0200, Luis Garrido wrote:
LinuxSampler is not free software or open
On Sun, 2006-07-02 at 10:28 -0700, Fernando Lopez-Lezcano wrote:
On Sat, 2006-07-01 at 15:51 -0400, Dave Robillard wrote:
On Sat, 2006-07-01 at 20:33 +0100, Bob Ham wrote:
On Sat, 2006-07-01 at 23:53 +0700, Patrick Shirkey wrote:
Dave Robillard wrote:
On Sat, 2006-07-01 at 17:43
Andreas Kuckartz wrote:
Dave Phillips or Christian Schoenebeck wrote:
[snip]
My apologies, the text is Christian's I forgot an end-quote. Just to be
complete, here's the entire message, including Matt Flax's original query :
Am Montag, 5. September 2005 04:40 schrieb Matt Flax:
Hello,
Christian wrote:
Unfortunately I haven't found an existing open source license which
would reflect those restrictions. Some even said this wouldn't be an
open source license according to definitions of XY, but personally I
think it would. So maybe we would have to write a new license, like
On 7/2/06, Dave Robillard [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Fri, 2006-06-30 at 15:54 +0100, Robert Ham wrote:
On Fri, Jun 30, 2006 at 10:25:04AM -0400, Forest Bond wrote:
As far as I can tell there are two resolutions:
1) someone works on fst to make it save kontakt's state
2) someone writes
14 matches
Mail list logo
