On Tuesday, June 28, 2016 22:16:41 Robin Gareus wrote: > I'd like users to respect the intention of the authors of this IMHO > great software. But I very much wish for these intentions to be clearly > solidified by a proper license (until a time comes where software > licensing becomes irrelevant). [snip] > > One practical example: forking linuxsampler: A lot of users are/were not > happy with 32 channels LV2 output by default in Ardour (though this has > meanwhile been solved in in Ardour with plugin pin connections). > > How could a user modify the source and redistribute the changes and make > sure they're likewise not used in a commercial product?
Correct, the current license definition creates drawbacks for the user in certain scenarios which could be addressed by writing one precise, long, new license text as replacement for the current short "GPL + commercial exception" definition. This has also been argued by people i.e. from Debian before and is the main reason why LinuxSampler is currently not even in the so called "non- free section" of Debian (which is BTW not an official part of Debian). However writing such a long new license text takes a load of free time (which is already quite limited on my side), energy, research and finally a clear consent by the developers. And to be honest, if you look at the discussions here, do you really think that motivates i.e. me to do that? I mean there are people coming to this list or contacting me directly, whom I never heard of before in my entire life, not participated to this project in any way before, and dozens of them are telling me in all kinds of harsh ways over and over again what I "must" do with our software. There were even people before who claimed that we would break laws by releasing the sampler under those terms and other ridiculous things. So once and for all guys; if you want to discuss license issues: do your home work (i.e. especially check the FAQs and the list archive by yourself), be polite, don't be offensive (we are all doing this in our spare time, you cannot force us to do anything), and be constructive: if you really want license issues to be addressed, sit down, elaborate and suggest clear license terms by yourself which could become a candidate to resolve those overall issues. > Would you oppose a non-free debian package alike the > adobe-flash-installer? Basically a script that automatically get the > source and compiles a local version or grabs a binary from some place? I never was, nor was anybody from this project. I think we have Debian packaging scripts almost since day one. And like I stated above, it was Debian's side who told us that they would like to, but currently cannot add it to non-free due to i.e. some reasons you mentioned as well. And obviously, there is a difference between just rolling a package and the actual use case. Putting the package on a public web server is one thing, linking or even incorporating the package with a hardware product is a completely different thing. CU Christian ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Attend Shape: An AT&T Tech Expo July 15-16. Meet us at AT&T Park in San Francisco, CA to explore cutting-edge tech and listen to tech luminaries present their vision of the future. This family event has something for everyone, including kids. Get more information and register today. http://sdm.link/attshape _______________________________________________ Linuxsampler-devel mailing list Linuxsampler-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/linuxsampler-devel
