Vladimir Senkov wrote: > IANAL and I suppose myself and others who aren't lawyers should not > try to be lawyers, but since you mentioned that linuxsampler > developers are exposed to litigation and i was at some point involved > in that, i'd like to make two brief comments (i know i'm probably > going to regret that): > 1) IANAL, but it's my understanding that _everybody_ is subject to > litigation at any point of time, at least in the US. > 2) IANAL, but according to wikipedia > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_source_software: > " > The term "Open Source" was originally intended to be trademarkable; > however, the term was deemed too descriptive, so no trademark > exists[9]. > " > > having pointed those two out, i agree with many points you made. if it > makes any difference (and it really doesn't) it all sounds very > reasonable and logical. > > On Fri, Nov 28, 2008 at 7:23 PM, Gregory Maxwell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> 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 >> >> > > > > I have submitted a patch that made it into trunk so I guess I will see you all in court :)
------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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
