Dave Phillips wrote: > Gene Heskett wrote: > >> On Sunday 19 July 2009, [email protected] wrote: >> >> >>> If anybody is interested, I have decompiled the latest Impro-visor version, >>> which has only been provide as a binary (in contradiction to the terms of >>> the GPL). So if you want the source code just let me know and I will send >>> it. >>> >>> .... >>> >>> >>> Apart from that, I will be looking into forking Impro-visor in the next few >>> days. After making contact with the responsible parties about the GPL >>> violations, I have received no reply and the source code has not been >>> posted along with the binaries as is legally required.... >>> >> Turn this violation over to the kind folks at the FSF. They have a legal >> team >> to pursue such, and have AFAIK, a 100% batting record. Letters from >> attorneys >> will generally get their institutional attention. >> >> > > Maybe. I submitted details re: the LinuxSampler license to the FSF and > never heard a thing from them. > > For the OP's edification I submit this text from the GPL2 : > > *3.* You may copy and distribute the Program (or a work based on it, > under Section 2) in object code or executable form under the terms of > Sections 1 and 2 above provided that you also do one of the following: > > > *a)* Accompany it with the complete corresponding machine-readable > source code, which must be distributed under the terms of Sections 1 > and 2 above on a medium customarily used for software interchange; or, > > *b)* Accompany it with a written offer, valid for at least three > years, to give any third party, for a charge no more than your cost > of physically performing source distribution, a complete > machine-readable copy of the corresponding source code, to be > distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above on a medium > customarily used for software interchange; or, > > *c)* Accompany it with the information you received as to the offer > to distribute corresponding source code. (This alternative is > allowed only for noncommercial distribution and only if you received > the program in object code or executable form with such an offer, in > accord with Subsection b above.) > > > > There is no legal requirement for the producer to post the source code > along with the binary. The legal requirement is that he makes it > available under conditions spelled out in the license. > > Best, > > dp
Yep! There was a similar problem for LMMS, because of Beatmachine Pro. I didn't read the LMMS dev archive, but I noticed that Beatmachine Pro is dead now, maybe there is a solution how to handle this in the LMMS dev mailing list archive. I stopped receiving mails from the list, when I started overboiling. I don't know if the LMMS folks solved it or if the Beatmachine Pro guy becomes "insightful". _______________________________________________ Linux-audio-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.linuxaudio.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-audio-dev
