[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Linuxsampler license

On Thu, Sep 15, 2005 at 10:50:12 +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
> That is indeed non-free and fails DFSG #6, the package cannot be in main, but
> could be in non-free maybe.

It has come to my attention that released Linuxsampler versions up to 
the latest release 0.3.3 are licensed purely under the GPL. The 
"NON COMMERCIAL"-exception has been added to the cvs version and is 
reflected on the homepage also.

The debian packaged version in unstable is from cvs where this 
restriction is added. It has to be removed from Debian.

It seems that the authors are considering to find another license for 
future releases. They are looking to find ways to force companies making 
use of Linuxsampler in their products to participate in development of 
Linuxsampler or other "open source audio project". [1]

It also seems they are looking for an open source license or if they 
won't find one they'll write one themselves. I'm concerned that they
might end up with a non free, non opensource license.

If you work in the audio field and have the same concern about 
Linuxsampler, it might be wise to participate in the conversation
on the Linuxsampler developer mailing list and express yourself. [1]

To me it seems that the authors are afraid that companies will take 
advantage of the software without contributing anything to the 
community. They don't seem to feel that GPL is the best way to attract
contributions from companies. With good arguments they might see
that GPL is as good as it gets.

Choosing another license for Linuxsampler will make it impossible to 
make use of GPL'd software as part of linuxsampler. Writing their own
license will be difficult and error prone. And it will add up to the
jungle of confusion in world of licenses.

Choosing or writing a non opensource license will make them have to 
leave sourceforge and might lead into forking Linuxsampler into free
(or opensource) and nonfree (proprietary/non opensource) versions.

Harri Järvi


Reply to: