On Fri, Nov 28, 2008 at 5:05 PM, Graham Goode <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: [sno[ > 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).
Wrong wrong wrong. Commercial hardware and software makers are free to use GPL (and LGPL) code. They must abide by the terms of the GPL, which will cause them to make all or some of the source code of their product available. (And GPLv3 ensures that people who purchase the hardware have the same ability to update the software as the maker does). Some commercial vendors may not like the requirements of the GPL and thus may chose not to use GPL covered works, but the GPL contains absolutely no prohibition against commercial use. Sometimes commercial users engage in activities which are counter to the freedom purpose of free software (i.e. "tivoization") which is why the GPL has been updated to address those risks, but commercial usage itself is generally considered to be a protected activity by the Free Software foundation. > 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. Strictly speaking linuxsampler, by prohibiting commercial use, fails to meet the definition of free software (http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html), the open source definition (http://www.opensource.org/docs/definition.php), and by extension the requirements of various distributions: E.g. Fedora (http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/LicensingGuidelines) and Debian (http://www.debian.org/social_contract#guidelines). Because "open source" is a trademark the authors of Linux Sampler are currently exposed to litigation for abusing the mark to describe their product as something it's not. Perhaps it is best for the world if Linux Sampler doesn't permit being embedded in commercial products, I wouldn't have any clue. But it's simply incorrect to describe the Linux sampler licensing terms as more permissive than the GPL. > 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." [snip] This is not true. If it were pure GPL from many copyright holders with no assignment then yes, you couldn't give permission for uses which violate the GPL. Some authors of pure GPL software also offer the software under alternative terms for commercial users who do not wish to abide by the requirements of the GPL. (i.e. the requirements to include source for the GPL covered works, etc) ------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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
