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 source software. > >>> > >> (sigh, must we, really?) > >> > >> It depends on who you choose to side with. > > > > Forget "free software" then, I don't mean to start any debate, and > > there's no "sides" here. Just that people are talking about writing > > open source alternatives to things (Kontakt) and referring to > > LinuxSampler as the project to do so, so it should be pointed out so > > people aren't misled. > > > > LinuxSampler is not open source. > > > > It's veeeery close though. > > It's just using a modified GPL License which isn't clearly labelled as > such. IANAL but that makes LinuxSampler illegally licensed if someone > wanted to make a fuss about it. They call it GPL version 2 or 3 but it > has been modified so that nullifies it AFAIK. If they don't fix it and > someone does use their software to make a financial gain then it could > very easily be argued that the software is licensed as GPL 2 or 3 and > that makes it 100% open source.
I don't think so. If the GPL is combined with some other license agreement or restriction that is not compatible with the GPL, it automatically cancels itself (see paragraph 7, http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl.txt ) and normal copyright law applies. Which in most countries means that only the actual copyright owner (if there is a single one) is allowed to distribute it. -- Lars Luthman - please encrypt any email sent to me if possible PGP key: http://pgp.mit.edu:11371/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0x04C77E2E Fingerprint: FCA7 C790 19B9 322D EB7A E1B3 4371 4650 04C7 7E2E
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
