Kaj Ailomaa zequence at mousike.me
Sun Oct 14 22:05:30 UTC 2012

On Sun, 14 Oct 2012 23:44:17 +0200, ttoine <ttoine at ttoine.net> wrote:

> Eric,
> But is there a "fully open and free software" that can used instead of  
> LMMS ?
> Toine
> 2012/10/14 Eric Hedekar <afterthebeep at gmail.com>:
>> On Sun, Oct 14, 2012 at 1:31 PM, Len Ovens <len at ovenwerks.net> wrote:
>> Quite right.  There are licensing issues that LMMS is currently built  
>> with
>> in the repos that we can't exactly include by default.  It would take a  
>> lot
>> of work to tweak and maintain a different LMMS build, and even then  
>> we'd be
>> creating a reduced feature set for the end user and those who really  
>> want to
>> use the program would likely install a different version (or be  
>> discouraged
>> by our included version and not use the program at all).  It's probably  
>> best
>> to stick with more fully open and free software, suggesting LMMS to  
>> those
>> interested in using VST-based production methods, possibly via a  
>> suggestion
>> in our help documents.
>> - Eric Hedekar
>> --
>> Ubuntu-Studio-devel mailing list
>> Ubuntu-Studio-devel at lists.ubuntu.com
>> Modify settings or unsubscribe at:
>> https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-studio-devel

 From a recent discussion on IRC I believe it was concluded that whatever  
licensing issues there are is because of wine, which 32bit LMMS brings in,  
so LMMS itself has no licensing issues. I also believe it was concluded  
that LMMS can be installed without wine, leaving it up to the user whether  
or not to install it separately.

More information about the Ubuntu-Studio-devel mailing list