Luis de Bethencourt wrote: > If you say it is so close to gpl... Why don't they license it gpl or > any other known license with a foundation behind? > > When a linuxsampler developer gives me a valid purpose I will start > agreeing with them. Or they license it gpl or any other free license > for that matter, we will ship it by default. > > For now, they have their own license, which is never cool. And that > license has ambiguos terms as you mention, that can be taken to be > very free or dictatorship. As a contributor to a distro that deploys > software to a _LOT_ of people. I can't take the risk of > misinterpreting a license, and breaking it, or even worse, making the > users break it. > > Not talking about you, Yvan, but most end users don't care about > licenses. So we have to care for us and for them. Sadly enough, free > software development isn't excempt of a lot of legal issues (which are > boring and tedious). > I agree. It is a sound reason to refuse software if it's not GPL. I was only worried because I thought there was a misinterpretation, and a judgment made for the wrong reasons could polarize people. As a final point I'd like to mention i don't use samplers myself. So it doesn't have anything to do with my personal preferences.
Regards, yvan -- Ubuntu-Studio-devel mailing list [email protected] Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-studio-devel
