On Sat, Sep 17, 2005 at 10:31:30AM +0300, Harri Järvi wrote:
It has come to my attention that released Linuxsampler versions up to
the latest release 0.3.3 are licensed purely under the GPL. The
NON COMMERCIAL-exception has been added to the cvs version and is
reflected on the homepage
On 9/20/05, Branden Robinson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[...]
Harald Welte have successfully pursued
infringment claims against people who violate the GPL.
Einstweilige Verfuegung (ex parte action) != Hauptverfahren (lawsuit).
http://www.macnewsworld.com/story/43996.html
quote
It's a Small
On 9/20/05, Alexander Terekhov [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 9/20/05, Branden Robinson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[...]
Harald Welte have successfully pursued
infringment claims against people who violate the GPL.
Einstweilige Verfuegung (ex parte action) != Hauptverfahren (lawsuit).
Lewis Jardine wrote:
I believe LGPL 2a (The modified work must itself be a software library),
and 2d (...you must make a good faith effort to ensure that, in the
event an application does not supply such function or table, the
facility still operates...) are 'further restrictions' with
On Thu, Sep 15, 2005 at 10:50:12 +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
That is indeed non-free and fails DFSG #6, the package cannot be in main, but
could be in non-free maybe.
It has come to my attention that released Linuxsampler versions up to
the latest release 0.3.3 are licensed purely under the GPL.
GPL-incompatible
Somewhere in the cyberspace (Shlomi Fish on Monday April 01).
A recent press conference of the Free Software Foundation confirmed
the rumors that the GNU General Public License was found to be
incompatible with itself. This newly discovered fact may actually
cause a
On 9/16/05, Alexander Terekhov [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
GPL-incompatible
http://www.linuxrising.org/files/licensingfaq.html
(We paid the FSF to have them provide us these answers. So these
answers are verified correct by people like FSF lawyer and law
professor Eben Moglen.)
On 9/16/05, Harri Järvi [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Fri, Sep 16, 2005 at 14:12:34 +0200, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
GPL-incompatible
Somewhere in the cyberspace (Shlomi Fish on Monday April 01).
That's April Fool's Day.
It runs all year long in the GNU Republic.
regards,
alexander.
On Fri, Sep 16, 2005 at 14:12:34 +0200, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
GPL-incompatible
Somewhere in the cyberspace (Shlomi Fish on Monday April 01).
That's April Fool's Day.
-Harri
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL
On Friday 16 September 2005 17:22, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
On 9/16/05, Harri Järvi [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Fri, Sep 16, 2005 at 14:12:34 +0200, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
GPL-incompatible
Somewhere in the cyberspace (Shlomi Fish on Monday April 01).
That's April Fool's Day.
Alexander Terekhov wrote:
On 9/16/05, Alexander Terekhov [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
GPL-incompatible
I just wonder how can BSD/MIT/... be GPL compatible not having
section 3 of the LGPL.
I believe LGPL 2a (The modified work must itself be a software library),
and 2d (...you must make a good
I just wonder how can BSD/MIT/... be GPL compatible not having
section 3 of the LGPL.
Everything distributable under the terms of BSD/MIT, is also
distributable under the terms of the GPL because BSD/MIT (2 and
3 clauses) is *less* restrictive than the GPL.
--
HTH,
Massa
--
To
On 9/16/05, Humberto Massa Guimarães [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I just wonder how can BSD/MIT/... be GPL compatible not having
section 3 of the LGPL.
Everything distributable under the terms of BSD/MIT, is also
distributable under the terms of the GPL because BSD/MIT (2 and
3 clauses) is
On 9/16/05, Humberto Massa Guimarães
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I just wonder how can BSD/MIT/... be GPL compatible not having
section 3 of the LGPL.
Everything distributable under the terms of BSD/MIT, is also
distributable under the terms of the GPL because BSD/MIT (2 and
3
On 9/16/05, Humberto Massa Guimarães [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 9/16/05, Humberto Massa Guimarães
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I just wonder how can BSD/MIT/... be GPL compatible not having
section 3 of the LGPL.
Everything distributable under the terms of BSD/MIT, is also
Derivative source code must stay under original license. You're
right that BSD/MIT/... allow sublicensing under different terms
for *binary form*... but that's just like the IBM's CPL, for
example, which even Microsoft uses and likes (in spite of
contractual obligation to provide access to
On Fri, 16 Sep 2005 14:08:33 -0300 Humberto Massa Guimarães wrote:
Derivative source code must stay under original license. You're
right that BSD/MIT/... allow sublicensing under different terms
for *binary form*... but that's just like the IBM's CPL, for
example, which even Microsoft
On Thu, Sep 15, 2005 at 08:03:46AM +0300, Harri Järvi wrote:
On Wed, Sep 14, 2005 at 16:26:15 +0200, Göran Weinholt wrote:
On Tue, Sep 13, 2005 at 05:54:35PM +0300, Harri Järvi wrote:
In addition there's a conflict between linuxsampler's aim to be an
opensource software, and the license
El jueves, 15 de septiembre de 2005 a las 10:50:12 +0200, Sven Luther escribía:
LinuxSampler is licensed under the GNU GPL license with the exception
that COMMERCIAL USE of the souce code, libraries and applications is
NOT ALLOWED without prior written permission by the LinuxSampler
El jueves, 15 de septiembre de 2005 a las 13:07:18 +0300, George Danchev
escribía:
That is indeed non-free and fails DFSG #6, the package cannot be in
main, but could be in non-free maybe.
Probably not, according to some interpretations (the GPL does not allow
Right, as explained in
On Thu, Sep 15, 2005 at 12:45:41PM +0200, Jacobo Tarrio wrote:
El jueves, 15 de septiembre de 2005 a las 13:07:18 +0300, George Danchev
escrib?a:
That is indeed non-free and fails DFSG #6, the package cannot be in
main, but could be in non-free maybe.
Probably not, according to
On Tue, Sep 13, 2005 at 05:54:35PM +0300, Harri Järvi wrote:
[...]
The problem is that the README in linuxsampler says the following thing:
This software is distributed under the GNU General Public License (see
COPYING file), and may not be used in commercial applications without
asking the
On Wed, Sep 14, 2005 at 16:26:15 +0200, Göran Weinholt wrote:
On Tue, Sep 13, 2005 at 05:54:35PM +0300, Harri Järvi wrote:
In addition there's a conflict between linuxsampler's aim to be an
opensource software, and the license used. Restricting commercial use
makes the software
Hello,
Linuxsampler is packaged in debian unstable.
It would seem to me that Linuxsampler currently is not compatible with
DFSG. I hope the readers of this mailing list have more information
about this kind of a problem and how to address it with the authors of
the software and also with debian.
On Tue, Sep 13, 2005 at 05:54:35PM +0300, Harri J?rvi wrote:
Hello,
Linuxsampler is packaged in debian unstable.
It would seem to me that Linuxsampler currently is not compatible with
DFSG.
Agree.
Also it seems to me that Linuxsampler's authors wouldn't be allowed to
make the kind of a
On Tue, Sep 13, 2005 at 01:02:43PM -0400, pryzbyj wrote:
On Tue, Sep 13, 2005 at 05:54:35PM +0300, Harri J?rvi wrote:
Hello,
Linuxsampler is packaged in debian unstable.
It would seem to me that Linuxsampler currently is not compatible with
DFSG.
Agree.
I'm filing a grave bug
26 matches
Mail list logo
