Three For O (Linux Journal) [LWN.net]

Three For O (Linux Journal)

Posted Oct 29, 2009 22:05 UTC (Thu) by gmaxwell (subscriber, #30048) [Link]

Because it's commonly missed, it's pointing out that Linuxsampler is not free software: It's distributed the GPLv2 with the "EXCEPTION that they may NOT be used in COMMERCIAL software or hardware products without prior written authorization by the authors."

Although their FAQ is abundantly clear on the matter the webpages and documentation have leaned hard on the ambiguity over "Open Source" in a way that has created confusion for some people.

Sadly samplers stopped being commercially interesting products shortly after everyone figured out that PCs could do the task very inexpensively, so it's just not worth funding R&D building one. If you want a turn-key sampler setup your options are pretty limited.

Three For O (Linux Journal)

Posted Oct 30, 2009 13:44 UTC (Fri) by DOT (subscriber, #58786) [Link]

That's not a very useful exception. Anyone may at any time remove that exception and use plain GPL. ;)

Three For O (Linux Journal)

Posted Oct 30, 2009 13:51 UTC (Fri) by DOT (subscriber, #58786) [Link]

Oh, it's not a normal GPL exception. They use the confusing term 'exception', but what they really mean is: "a license that is not GPL".

Licensing

Posted Oct 30, 2009 18:11 UTC (Fri) by job (subscriber, #670) [Link]

Which is still weird. As I read it you would be allowed to use code from the program in another non-commerical open source program, which would comply with both the GPL and their exception.

That software could in turn be forked by Red Hat or any other commerical open source developer as their original exception would now be lost despite no one doing anything wrong. I doubt it is wise to use ambiguous licenses such as this one.

Three For O (Linux Journal)

Posted Oct 30, 2009 13:45 UTC (Fri) by dmaxwell (guest, #14010) [Link]

It may well be the case there is no license to use the software at then. They are adding an additional restriction to the GPL. One can generally add exceptions that make that instance of the GPL more permissive but I wasn't aware that one could make it less permissive.

OSSv4 has a similar problem. 4Front imposes their own restrictive take on the GPL. For instance, they would insist running a commercial game that outputs through their "GPL" software means that user must purchase one of their commercial licenses.

http://4front-tech.com/hannublog/?p=8

So some seems to have dangerously stupid ideas of either how and when GPL restrictions apply or that arbitrary restrictions can be imposed in addition to the GPL. I believe the intent in copyrighting the text of the license itself was to prevent such shenanigans and the GPL itself appears designed to grant no permissions once an external factor contradicts any of the privileges under specified conditions it grants.

Without guidance on such misuse of the GPL, I'll believe that I have no license whatsoever to use software "licensed" in such a fashion.