Dave Robillard wrote: > This is utterly false, and completely contrary to the entire purpose of > Free Software, and the GPL. It's the very first 'freedom' (out of four) > in the definition of Free Software, which was written by the same person > as the GPL, for the same reasons.
Okay. Now let me add more fuel to this useless discussion [1]: http://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/agpl-3.0.html Note, that this license (Affero GPL) seems to be considered a "free, copyleft license" by FSF itself. Still, it restricts the actual *use* (and not just *distribution*) of covered software. The exact type of restriction is different from one in LinuxSampler license, but that's because it tries to solve a different problem. LinuxSampler license is intended to prevent hardware makers from profiting off the LS project by making it a part of hardware box, AGPL is intended to prevent Web companies from profiting (in some or other way) off projects by combining it with other code and running it on a public server. Similarities: - intention of prevention of uncooperative behaviour - restriction of use - encourages dual-licensing to companies that *really* want to use a project in closed source derivatives - based on GPL Differences: - LS bans: commercial && hardware - AGPL bans: derived works && closed-source modifications && use on network servers Krzysztof [1] Hopefully "fuel for thinking", not "fuel for name-calling". YMMV. _______________________________________________ Linux-audio-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.linuxaudio.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-audio-dev
