> On Fri, 2006-12-15 at 17:40 +0000, James Stone wrote:
>
>>> I hate to be a jerk and crap on someone's project, but this is a
>>> clear violation of the GPL. Here's some GPL FAQs that explain this:
>>>
>>>
https://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/gpl-faq.html#DoesTheGPLAllowMoney
>>>
https://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/gpl-faq.html#TOCDoesTheGPLAllowND...
>>>
https://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/gpl-faq.html#TOCOrigBSD
>>>
>>> Software freedom zero requires that a program be usable for any
>>> purpose whatsoever with no restrictions or limitations. Of course if
>>> I produce a hardware device that uses a modified LinuxSampler, my
>>> modifications are required to be free software.
>>>
>> I agree it is a shame LS is not Free Software, but it is free as
>> in beer, and open source, and is a really nice piece of
>> programming.
>>
>
> I'm not so sure that it is open source as it stands now. Paragraph 7 of
> the GPL says:
>
> "If, as a consequence of a court judgment or allegation of patent
> infringement or for any other reason (not limited to patent issues),
> conditions are imposed on you (whether by court order, agreement or
> otherwise) that contradict the conditions of this License, they do not
> excuse you from the conditions of this License. If you cannot distribute
> so as to satisfy simultaneously your obligations under this License and
> any other pertinent obligations, then as a consequence you may not
> distribute the Program at all."
>
> So if you are not allowed to distribute LinuxSampler for commercial
> purposes you are not allowed to distribute it at all. I'm sure this is
> not what the LinuxSampler people intend, but as the license stands now
> it is inconsistent and, according to paragraph 7 of the GPL, invalid -
> which means that normal copyright law applies, without any extra
> freedoms at all.
>
> But you are right that this has been discussed to death several times
> already, and if the LinuxSampler authors haven't fixed the license by
> now they are probably not going to do it in the forseeable future
> either. I withdraw from the discussion.
>
>