Hi All, The more I read on this topic the more confused I get... some say that the authors are allowed to add any exceptions as it is their property that they are licensing, it is just distributors who can't add further exceptions. Others say that due to the exception LinuxSampler can't link to any pure GPL library or binary unless it is a release from the authors (so Ubuntu can't distribute libgig (GPL) with LinuxSampler (GPL + exception).
Then there is this caveat: "I think there is a misunderstanding here. The exception the linuxSampler license states is about integrating the code etc. in COMMERCIAL hardware or software. This is exactly what the GPL stands for. You can do anything with the code as long as you respect the GPL license. So the freedom we want is guaranteed. Now for the exception they make: under normal circumstances, commercial hardware- and software makers are not allowed to use GPL code (LGPL yes, but that's another story). So the linuxSampler license is a bit less restrictive than the real GPL, in that it gives commercial software makers a chance to use their code, even in ways the GPL does not allow it, but only if permission is given by the authors. If it were pure GPL, giving this permission would be impossible. So this license gives a bit more freedom, it does not take the freedom from GPL." Interesting perspective.... Sorry if this is raising old issues here... it seems that this question has been around for a while. I'd just like to reach the point where users can get this great program from Synaptic :-) Graham On 11/23/08, Pieter Palmers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Graham Goode wrote: >> Hi, > First of all, I am not a LinuxSampler developer. Nor am I a lawyer. But > I also write significant amounts of open-source code, and I have also > wondered a lot on how to license it such that my work doesn't get exploited. > >> >> It has recently been brought to my attention that the reason that >> LinuxSampler is not included in Ubuntu Studio is the incompatible >> application of the GPL2 license with the commercial exception for the >> LinuxSampler portion. Simply put, section 6 of the GPL2 prevents ANY >> exceptions to the free nature of the GPL2 license, so the commercial >> exception is a violation of the GPL2. > > This discussion is one of those that never seem to die... I think it's > pretty simple: The author of a piece of software can specify whatever > license he/she wishes. > > I copy-pasted the section you refer to and took the liberty of > capitalizing some words: > > "Each time YOU redistribute the Program (or any work based on the > Program), the recipient automatically receives a license from the > original licensor to copy, distribute or modify the Program subject to > these terms and conditions. YOU may not impose any further restrictions > on the recipients' exercise of the rights granted herein. You are not > responsible for enforcing compliance by third parties to this License." > > In other words: if YOU redistribute, YOU cannot impose any extra > limitations. The original author (licensor) still can specify whatever > he/she wants. This is what happens in the LinuxSampler case. > > The license does not apply to the author, if he/she wants to release the > next version under a closed source license he/she is perfectly entitled > to do so. Giving a license doesn't mean that you give up your authorship > and/or copyright. > > This is also acknowledged by the GNU FAQ: > http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#DeveloperViolate > " > Is the developer of a GPL-covered program bound by the GPL? Could the > developer's actions ever be a violation of the GPL? > > Strictly speaking, the GPL is a license from the developer for others to > use, distribute and change the program. The developer itself is not > bound by it, so no matter what the developer does, this is not a > "violation" of the GPL. > ... > " > > One sidenote is important: > http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#ModifyGPL > " > Can I modify the GPL and make a modified license? > > You can use the GPL terms (possibly modified) in another license > provided that you call your license by another name and do not include > the GPL preamble, and provided you modify the instructions-for-use at > the end enough to make it clearly different in wording and not mention > GNU (though the actual procedure you describe may be similar). > > If you want to use our preamble in a modified license, please write to > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> for permission. For this purpose we would want to > check the actual license requirements to see if we approve of them. > ... > " > > This is also pretty clear... you can't modify the license and still call > it the GPL. Which is where the actual issues with LinuxSampler lie. > > First of all one could argue that the LinuxSampler project still calls > this license the "GPL with commercial exception". In my opinion this is > not allowed. Which is why I think your "LinuxSampler license" proposal > is interesting. > > The second issue I see is that the license of libgig is pure GPL. IMHO > this means that you can't link non-GPL programs to it. At least I hope > this interpretation is correct, since that's exactly why I released my > code under GPL and not e.g. LGPL. Since LinuxSampler cannot be GPL, this > can be an issue. The question is whether the LinuxSampler license is GPL > compatible. I don't know. > >> >> Having said this, I can certainly mentally delete section 6 of the >> GPL2 and add the commercial exception in it's place and realize that >> this is all that the LinuxSampler authors are asking for. But for >> those of the community who like things in black and white, I have >> created a LinuxSampler General Public License that includes the >> commercial exception and keeps intact the general spirit of the GPL2. >> I have attached it to this email as a proposal to the authors that >> they read through it and change it if they think it needs changing. >> Then I would ask that it be accepted as the LinuxSampler GPL. This >> will allow LinuxSampler to be included as part of the Multiverse >> applications in Ubuntu Studio and will better protect the wishes of >> the LinuxSampler authors. As it stands at the moment the LinuxSampler >> license is self contradictory and it could be argued in court that it >> is non-existent as a result of the contradiction. > > As I tried to argue before, the current license is not > self-contradictory since it's not GPL. > > The LinuxSampler license idea is IMHO be a good one, if it is also > available for libgig. > > So the 'clean' solution would be: > * define the current GPL+exception as "The LinuxSampler License" > * release LinuxSampler under the "The LinuxSampler License" > * release libgig under both GPL and "The LinuxSampler License" > > IMHO this should be sufficient to resolve the licensing mess. > > some 2 cents, > > Pieter Palmers > ------------------------------------------------------------------------- This SF.Net email is sponsored by the Moblin Your Move Developer's challenge Build the coolest Linux based applications with Moblin SDK & win great prizes Grand prize is a trip for two to an Open Source event anywhere in the world http://moblin-contest.org/redirect.php?banner_id=100&url=/ _______________________________________________ Linuxsampler-devel mailing list Linuxsampler-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/linuxsampler-devel
