On Sat, 2006-07-01 at 20:56 +0100, Rui Nuno Capela wrote: > 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. > > > > When did it happen that when some software project is not GPL is not > open-source? E.g. apache is not GPL, so it must not be open-source?
Noone said that. > Problem with linuxsampler license void its all about that infamous > exception clause on the README file, "that it may NOT be used in > COMMERCIAL software or hardware products without prior written > authorization by the authors." > > Beside the simple fact that it voids the GPL, it certainly doesn't make > it closed-source Actually yes it does, by the "official" open source definition (which is clearly what people refer to when they use the term "open source". http://www.opensource.org/docs/definition.php Whether or not you agree with the licensing practise, calling it "open source" is as misleading as calling MS shared source "open source". Defend the license/exception if you want, but don't intentionally mislead people about the licensing terms. -DR-
