Ben Finney writes:
> That much was already clear. It's still not a coherent license, under
> either of those conditions, and hence grants no valid license to the
> copyright holder.
I wrote that incorrectly: it should end with “… no valid license from the
copyright holder”.
--
\ “The his
"IOhannes m zmölnig (Debian/GNU)" writes:
> just to clarify.
> the proposal was to dual-license under
> (1) a license termed "GPL + exceptions", which refers to the GPL but
> adds a non-commercial clause
> (2) a license named "Linux Sampler License" which prohibits commercial
> use but *apart fro
On 10/09/2015 03:40 AM, Ben Finney wrote:
>> > - they could dual-license the work under "GPL+exceptions" (to spare
>> > their happy audience) and under a "Linux Sampler License" (which would
>> > be the same but under a different name)
just to clarify.
the proposal was to dual-license under
(1) a
* Ben Finney:
> 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 they redistribute the work.
It's somewhat dou
Am Donnerstag, den 08.10.2015, 23:39 +0200 schrieb Francesco Poli:
> Just to be clear, my own personal opinion is that
> "GPLv2 + restrictions" is self-contradictory and thus possibly void:
> I would not consider software released under such terms as safely
> distributable.
FWIW, I share this view
"IOhannes m zmölnig (Debian/GNU)" writes:
> also, they figure that a license "GPL+exceptions" is much easier for
> their audience to *understand* (given that they are already familiar
> with the GPL, they only have to parse and understand the additional
> exceptions) than a new license (even if i
On Thu, 8 Oct 2015 17:06:22 +0200 IOhannes m zmölnig (Debian/GNU) wrote:
[...]
> which throws us back to the question whether software under that
> license is distributable (in non-free) at or not.
Just to be clear, my own personal opinion is that
"GPLv2 + restrictions" is self-contradictory and
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On 2015-10-08 16:32, Gunnar Wolf wrote:
>
> Anyway, further discussing the matter won't clarify it much. The
> clear result, /methinks, is that we all agree this is DFSG-unfree.
> Whether it is distributable in non-free... Is subject to
> discussion
Francesco Poli dijo [Wed, Oct 07, 2015 at 11:50:53PM +0200]:
> I personally think it is indeed relevant.
>
> Let me try to explain.
> The term "further restrictions" is meant "with respect to the
> GPL terms", not "with respect to GPL terms + any terms added by the
> copyright holder".
> Hence rel
On Wed, 30 Sep 2015 09:45:26 +0200 IOhannes m zmölnig (Debian/GNU)
wrote:
> On 2015-09-30 02:18, Ben Finney wrote:
> > Yes, that is clearly what the GPL calls an “additional restriction”
> > on the recipient's exercise of their freedoms guaranteed by the
> > GPL.
> >
> > GPLv2 §6:
> >
> > Each t
"IOhannes m zmölnig (Debian/GNU)" writes:
> On 2015-09-30 02:18, Ben Finney wrote:
> > Yes, that is clearly what the GPL calls an “additional restriction”
> > on the recipient's exercise of their freedoms guaranteed by the
> > GPL.
(The wording used in GPLv2 is “further restriction”; sorry for t
On 2015-09-30 04:38, Jeff Epler wrote:
> I was unaware of this detail of the GPLv3 license.
>
> The first source file that I looked at in linuxsampler's svn trunk,
> src/linuxsampler.cpp, has the "any later version" clause enabled.
a quick check shows that of the 303 sourcefiles ("*.cpp" and "*.h
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On 2015-09-30 02:18, Ben Finney wrote:
> Yes, that is clearly what the GPL calls an “additional restriction”
> on the recipient's exercise of their freedoms guaranteed by the
> GPL.
>
> GPLv2 §6:
>
> Each time you redistribute the Program (or any w
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
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 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
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 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
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
19 matches
Mail list logo
