Vladimir Senkov wrote:
> finally, the team will have a chance to meet each other :)
>
> i like the idea of trademark on "open source".
> You and I should register two trade marks: you go for the "open
> source" and i'll go for the "closed source" or vice versa.
> together we'll rule the world :)))
Vladimir Senkov wrote:
> IANAL and I suppose myself and others who aren't lawyers should not
> try to be lawyers, but since you mentioned that linuxsampler
> developers are exposed to litigation and i was at some point involved
> in that, i'd like to make two brief comments (i know i'm probably
> g
IANAL and I suppose myself and others who aren't lawyers should not
try to be lawyers, but since you mentioned that linuxsampler
developers are exposed to litigation and i was at some point involved
in that, i'd like to make two brief comments (i know i'm probably
going to regret that):
1) IANAL, b
On Fri, Nov 28, 2008 at 5:05 PM, Graham Goode <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[sno[
> Now for the exception they make: under normal circumstances, commercial
> hardware- and software makers are not allowed to use GPL code (LGPL yes,
> but that's another story).
Wrong wrong wrong.
Commercial hardware a
Hi All,
The more I read on this topic the more confused I get... some say that
the authors are allowed to add any exceptions as it is their property
that they are licensing, it is just distributors who can't add further
exceptions. Others say that due to the exception LinuxSampler can't
link to an
Graham Goode wrote:
> Hi,
First of all, I am not a LinuxSampler developer. Nor am I a lawyer. But
I also write significant amounts of open-source code, and I have also
wondered a lot on how to license it such that my work doesn't get exploited.
>
> It has recently been brought to my attention t
