linuxaudio.org

On Sat, Jul 01, 2006 at 04:09:42PM -0400, Dave Robillard wrote:
> Whether or not you agree with the licensing practise, calling it "open

quoted text
> source" is as misleading as calling MS shared source "open source".

> Defend the license/exception if you want, but don't intentionally

> mislead people about the licensing terms.

If the source is available for everyone to read, then it is open

according to the normal meaning of those words in English. What is

misleading is to attach any other meaning to them. It's a typical

marketeer's trick to redefine words or concepts that have a clear

an established meaning, and IMHO that's a disgusting practice.
Besides that, DR is broadcasting plain lies. There is nothing in

the Linuxsampler licence nor in that infamouse README that should

impede you using it for an album or concert you sell commercially.
--

FA
Follie! Follie! Delirio vano e' questo!