Re: Linuxsampler license
On Thu, Sep 15, 2005 at 12:45:41PM +0200, Jacobo Tarrio wrote:
> El jueves, 15 de septiembre de 2005 a las 13:07:18 +0300, George Danchev escrib?a:
> > > > That is indeed non-free and fails DFSG #6, the package cannot be in
> > > > main, but could be in non-free maybe.
> > > Probably not, according to some interpretations (the GPL does not allow
> > Right, as explained in #12 h, i, j, k at:
> > http://people.debian.org/~bap/dfsg-faq.html
> What I meant is that some believe that a piece covered by the
> GPL+additional restrictions, even if these restrictions were added by the
> author, is not distributable at all (by anyone other than the author).
That's an interesting interpretation. The only such thing that I have
heard is that "licenses with restrictions not present in the GPL are
GPL-incompatible", which makes this license (exception included)
GPL-incompatible. I think this is still a consistent license, though
perhaps difficult to interpret. Just that you couldn't link
linuxsampler with GPL code (according to the FSF).
Actually, isn't this sufficient to warrent removal, since linuxsampler
is linked against libasound2? (Unless the authors of that code
specifically indicate an alternate interpretation).