i'm currently thinking about packaging "linuxsampler", which has a
somewhat abominable license, which they call "GPL with commercial
exception" [1].
however, it is unclear whether this license allows us to distribute the
software in "non-free", or whether the contradictory nature renders the
entir
On Tue, Sep 29, 2015 at 05:14:11PM +0200, IOhannes m zmölnig (Debian/GNU) wrote:
> i'm currently thinking about packaging "linuxsampler", which has a
> somewhat abominable license, which they call "GPL with commercial
> exception" [1].
>
> [1] https://www.linuxsampler.org/downloads.html#exception
hi,
thanks for the quick reply.
On 09/29/2015 06:58 PM, Jeff Epler wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 29, 2015 at 05:14:11PM +0200, IOhannes m zmölnig (Debian/GNU)
> wrote:
>> i'm currently thinking about packaging "linuxsampler", which has a
>> somewhat abominable license, which they call "GPL with commercia
On 09/29/2015 06:58 PM, Jeff Epler wrote:
> As a consequence of the second item, I believe LinuxSampler is not
> distributable at all
alessio brought to my attention that the license of LinuxSampler was
already discussed on debian-legal 10 years ago, and it seems that they
came to a similar conclu
Jeff Epler writes:
> For discussion, the text in question from the linuxsampler website reads:
>
> [*] LinuxSampler is licensed under the GNU GPL with the exception that
> USAGE of the source code, libraries and applications FOR COMMERCIAL
> HARDWARE OR SOFTWARE PRODUCTS IS NOT ALLOWED without
On Wed, Sep 30, 2015 at 10:18:41AM +1000, Ben Finney wrote:
> As an interesting point, GPLv3 is even better for this: it has a clause
> (GPLv3 §7) that explicitly grants the recipient the freedom to ignore
> the offending additional restriction, and to strip that restriction from
> the terms when t
6 matches
Mail list logo
