From: Rob ()
Date: May 1, 2008
Subject:
Re: Pre-License change LinuxSampler code
On Thursday 01 May 2008 19:59, Mark Knecht wrote:
> Again, I do NOT guarantee that this fork is completely GPL.
The LS people are now claiming in their FAQ that the non-commercial
restriction was always there, and even that "that commercial
exception was even already in Benno Senoner's proof of concept code
called "EVO", which LinuxSampler was based on".
I don't know when that claim went up, but it was sometime after August
2007 and before 5 minutes ago (thank you, archive.org.) Shades of
SCO. "Who cares what you downloaded? This is what we MEANT to say
in our license..."
We can claim they purged the old history out of their CVS and they can
claim we fabricated a GPL-compliant version of their source tree.
All that means is when they try to sue Lionstracs or whoever
eventually gets their manties in a bunch, they won't have any
FSF-related legal resources at their disposal (oddly enough, the
defendant very well might), they'll probably lose due to this murky
situation, and the GPL will appear weaker in the press despite not
actually being at issue.
Before you respond to that troll from earlier this evening, by the
way, search your archives.
Rob
_______________________________________________
Linux-audio-user mailing list [EMAIL REMOVED] http://lists.linuxaudio.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-audio-user