On Sun, 2006-07-02 at 00:41 +0700, Patrick Shirkey wrote: > Lars Luthman 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 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. > > > > So then it is definitely not open source due to the current license. > > I hope they fix it soon.
Indeed. A sampler you can't even use on an album you intend to sell or in a performance you sell tickets to isn't exactly the most useful thing in the world. -DR-
