Should Qsampler be dropped from Ubuntu archives?
Yvan Vander Sanden
yvan at youngmusic.org
Wed Nov 28 10:40:47 GMT 2007
I think there is a misunderstanding here. The exception the linuxSampler
license states is about integrating the code etc. in COMMERCIAL hardware
or software. This is exactly what the GPL stands for. You can do
anything with the code as long as you respect the GPL license. So the
freedom we want is guaranteed.
Now for the expection they make: under normal circumstances, commercial
hardware- and softwaremakers are not allowed to use GPL code (LGPL yes,
but that's another story). So the linuxSampler license is a bit less
restrictive than the real GPL, in that it gives commerial softwaremakers
a chance to use their code, even in ways the GPL does not allow it, but
only if permission is given by the authors.
If it were pure GPL, giving this permission would be impossible. So this
license gives a bit more freedom, it does not take the freedom from GPL.
At least, that is what i understand when i read this. I have not read
the whole license yet.
On Tue, 2007-11-27 at 20:33 -0600, aaron wrote:
> On Nov 27, 2007 5:39 AM, Toma <tomhaste at gmail.com> wrote:
> > Maybe Im not too knowledgable on this, but the linuxsampler FAQ goes
> > into great lengths to say its open source and friendly.
> > [*] LinuxSampler is licensed under the GNU GPL license with the
> > exception that USAGE of the souce code, libraries and applications FOR
> > COMMERCIAL HARDWARE OR SOFTWARE PRODUCTS IS NOT ALLOWED without prior
> > written permission by the LinuxSampler authors. If you have questions
> > on the subject, that are not yet covered by the FAQ, please contact
> > us.
> Sounds to me like a direct violation of Freedom 0, "The freedom to run
> the program, for any purpose"
> Some explication from http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html
> "The freedom to run the program means the freedom for any kind of
> person or organization to use it on any kind of computer system, for
> any kind of overall job and purpose, without being required to
> communicate about it with the developer or any other specific entity.
> In this freedom, it is the user's purpose that matters, not the
> developer's purpose; you as a user are free to run a program for your
> purposes, and if you distribute it to someone else, she is then free
> to run it for her purposes, but you are not entitled to impose your
> purposes on her. "
> Granted, I've not read up on the LinuxSampler FAQ, but why this can't
> be considered free software seems kinda blatant to me from what you've
> "Sleep is death without the responsibility."
> -Fran Lebowitz, "Why I Love Sleep"
More information about the Ubuntu-Studio-devel