On Wed, Sep 1, 2010 at 12:26 PM, Kevin Fishburne <
[email protected]> wrote:
> I agree that documentation for each sample is the solution, placing the
> burden of proof of a sample's freeness on the author making the claim. That
> would show that all reasonable precautions were taken and provide a layer of
> protection. Any samples that are unable to be documented should be replaced.
> That would also allow the samples to be included with LMMS without the need
> for a second package.
>
While I agree with documenting the license of all files, we have a problem:
backwards compatibility. What to do if we cannot determine the license of a
sample currently included with LMMS? The obvious solution is: Drop it, most
of the samples suck anyways. But, what about existing projects? Perhaps I
want to play an old project from before the sample-cleanup. Or, perhaps I
want to listen to some preset on LSP. Even if every sample that ships with
LMMS is verified as "free", we still need to give the user _some_ channel to
obtain the "potentially non-free" samples.With proper warnings of course.
Such as "The origin of these files are unknown. Author assumes all risks by
using these in a project, blah blah blah". And the second package doesn't
have to be officially endorsed by us - it could be provided by a "fan".
-Paul
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This SF.net Dev2Dev email is sponsored by:
Show off your parallel programming skills.
Enter the Intel(R) Threading Challenge 2010.
http://p.sf.net/sfu/intel-thread-sfd
_______________________________________________
LMMS-devel mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/lmms-devel
