Re: inquery about "GPL with commercial exception"

* Ben Finney: > As an interesting point, GPLv3 is even better for this: it has a clause > (GPLv3 §7) that explicitly grants the recipient the freedom to ignore > the offending additional restriction, and to strip that restriction from > the terms when they redistribute the work. It's somewhat

Re: inquery about "GPL with commercial exception"

Ben Finney writes: > That much was already clear. It's still not a coherent license, under > either of those conditions, and hence grants no valid license to the > copyright holder. I wrote that incorrectly: it should end with “… no valid license from the copyright

Re: inquery about "GPL with commercial exception"

On 10/09/2015 03:40 AM, Ben Finney wrote: >> > - they could dual-license the work under "GPL+exceptions" (to spare >> > their happy audience) and under a "Linux Sampler License" (which would >> > be the same but under a different name) just to clarify. the proposal was to dual-license under (1) a

Re: inquery about "GPL with commercial exception"

Am Donnerstag, den 08.10.2015, 23:39 +0200 schrieb Francesco Poli: > Just to be clear, my own personal opinion is that > "GPLv2 + restrictions" is self-contradictory and thus possibly void: > I would not consider software released under such terms as safely > distributable. FWIW, I share this

Re: inquery about "GPL with commercial exception"

Francesco Poli dijo [Wed, Oct 07, 2015 at 11:50:53PM +0200]: > I personally think it is indeed relevant. > > Let me try to explain. > The term "further restrictions" is meant "with respect to the > GPL terms", not "with respect to GPL terms + any terms added by the > copyright holder". > Hence

Re: inquery about "GPL with commercial exception"

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA256 On 2015-10-08 16:32, Gunnar Wolf wrote: > > Anyway, further discussing the matter won't clarify it much. The > clear result, /methinks, is that we all agree this is DFSG-unfree. > Whether it is distributable in non-free... Is subject to >

Re: inquery about "GPL with commercial exception"

On Thu, 8 Oct 2015 17:06:22 +0200 IOhannes m zmölnig (Debian/GNU) wrote: [...] > which throws us back to the question whether software under that > license is distributable (in non-free) at or not. Just to be clear, my own personal opinion is that "GPLv2 + restrictions" is self-contradictory and

Re: inquery about "GPL with commercial exception"

Gunnar Wolf writes: > Francesco Poli dijo [Wed, Oct 07, 2015 at 11:50:53PM +0200]: > > One cannot comply with all these conditions at the same time. The > > "GPL + further restrictions" license is therefore > > self-contradictory. > > Right. But a content creator (in this case,

Re: inquery about "GPL with commercial exception"

On Wed, 30 Sep 2015 09:45:26 +0200 IOhannes m zmölnig (Debian/GNU) wrote: > On 2015-09-30 02:18, Ben Finney wrote: > > Yes, that is clearly what the GPL calls an “additional restriction” > > on the recipient's exercise of their freedoms guaranteed by the > > GPL. > > > > GPLv2 §6: > > > > Each

Re: inquery about "GPL with commercial exception"

On 2015-09-30 04:38, Jeff Epler wrote: > I was unaware of this detail of the GPLv3 license. > > The first source file that I looked at in linuxsampler's svn trunk, > src/linuxsampler.cpp, has the "any later version" clause enabled. a quick check shows that of the 303 sourcefiles ("*.cpp" and

Re: inquery about "GPL with commercial exception"

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA256 On 2015-09-30 02:18, Ben Finney wrote: > Yes, that is clearly what the GPL calls an “additional restriction” > on the recipient's exercise of their freedoms guaranteed by the > GPL. > > GPLv2 §6: > > Each time you redistribute the Program (or any

inquery about "GPL with commercial exception"

i'm currently thinking about packaging "linuxsampler", which has a somewhat abominable license, which they call "GPL with commercial exception" [1]. however, it is unclear whether this license allows us to distribute the software in "non-free", or whether the contradictory nature renders the

Re: inquery about "GPL with commercial exception"

Jeff Epler writes: > For discussion, the text in question from the linuxsampler website reads: > > [*] LinuxSampler is licensed under the GNU GPL with the exception that > USAGE of the source code, libraries and applications FOR COMMERCIAL > HARDWARE OR SOFTWARE

Re: inquery about "GPL with commercial exception"

On Wed, Sep 30, 2015 at 10:18:41AM +1000, Ben Finney wrote: > As an interesting point, GPLv3 is even better for this: it has a clause > (GPLv3 §7) that explicitly grants the recipient the freedom to ignore > the offending additional restriction, and to strip that restriction from > the terms when

Re: inquery about "GPL with commercial exception"

On Tue, Sep 29, 2015 at 05:14:11PM +0200, IOhannes m zmölnig (Debian/GNU) wrote: > i'm currently thinking about packaging "linuxsampler", which has a > somewhat abominable license, which they call "GPL with commercial > exception" [1]. > > [1] https://www.linuxsampler.org/downloads.html#exception

Re: inquery about "GPL with commercial exception"

On 09/29/2015 06:58 PM, Jeff Epler wrote: > As a consequence of the second item, I believe LinuxSampler is not > distributable at all alessio brought to my attention that the license of LinuxSampler was already discussed on debian-legal 10 years ago, and it seems that they came to a similar

Re: inquery about "GPL with commercial exception"

hi, thanks for the quick reply. On 09/29/2015 06:58 PM, Jeff Epler wrote: > On Tue, Sep 29, 2015 at 05:14:11PM +0200, IOhannes m zmölnig (Debian/GNU) > wrote: >> i'm currently thinking about packaging "linuxsampler", which has a >> somewhat abominable license, which they call "GPL with