Debian Bug report logs -
#328121
linuxsampler: Inconsistent and non DFSG free license
Toggle useless messages
Report forwarded to debian-bugs-dist@lists.debian.org, Matt Flax <flatmax@pgb.unsw.edu.au>:
Bug#328121; Package linuxsampler.
(full text, mbox, link).
Acknowledgement sent to Justin Pryzby <justinpryzby@users.sourceforge.net>:
New Bug report received and forwarded. Copy sent to Matt Flax <flatmax@pgb.unsw.edu.au>.
(full text, mbox, link).
Message #5 received at submit@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):
Package: linuxsampler
Severity: grave
Tags: upstream
X-Debbugs-CC: debian-legal@lists.debian.org
See this -legal thread,
http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2005/09/msg00268.html
Either upstream needs to be contacted to rectify the situation, or the
package needs to be removed.
> The problem is that the README in linuxsampler says the following
> thing:
>
> "This software is distributed under the GNU General Public License
> (see
> COPYING file), and may not be used in commercial applications
> without
> asking the authors for permission."
The part after the comma makes it DFSG nonfree, because it is
inconsistent with [0]:
| 6. No Discrimination Against Fields of Endeavor
|
| The license must not restrict anyone from making use of the program
in
| a specific field of endeavor. For example, it may not restrict the
| program from being used in a business
Information forwarded to debian-bugs-dist@lists.debian.org, Matt Flax <flatmax@pgb.unsw.edu.au>:
Bug#328121; Package linuxsampler.
(full text, mbox, link).
Acknowledgement sent to Justin Pryzby <justinpryzby@users.sourceforge.net>:
Extra info received and forwarded to list. Copy sent to Matt Flax <flatmax@pgb.unsw.edu.au>.
(full text, mbox, link).
Message #10 received at 328121@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):
On Tue, Sep 13, 2005 at 01:02:43PM -0400, pryzbyj wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 13, 2005 at 05:54:35PM +0300, Harri J?rvi wrote:
> > Hello,
> >
> > Linuxsampler is packaged in debian unstable.
> >
> > It would seem to me that Linuxsampler currently is not compatible with
> > DFSG.
> Agree.
> I'm filing a grave bug now, hopefully with Cc: -legal the right way,
> this time.
Nope, I put it in the pseudoheader instead of the SMTP header. This
is bug #328121.
> Justin
Information forwarded to debian-bugs-dist@lists.debian.org, Matt Flax <flatmax@pgb.unsw.edu.au>:
Bug#328121; Package linuxsampler.
(full text, mbox, link).
Acknowledgement sent to Göran Weinholt <weinholt@debian.org>:
Extra info received and forwarded to list. Copy sent to Matt Flax <flatmax@pgb.unsw.edu.au>.
(full text, mbox, link).
Message #15 received at 328121@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):
[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]
On Tue, Sep 13, 2005 at 05:54:35PM +0300, Harri Järvi wrote:
[...]
> The problem is that the README in linuxsampler says the following thing:
>
> "This software is distributed under the GNU General Public License (see
> COPYING file), and may not be used in commercial applications without
> asking the authors for permission."
I agree that this is inconsistent as written, but I think it's likely
that upstream meant to write "proprietary" instead of "commercial".
Simply explaining the difference to them should be enough to make them
change the wording. See this essay for an explanation of the difference:
http://www.fsf.org/licensing/essays/words-to-avoid.html#Commercial
> In addition there's a conflict between linuxsampler's aim to be an
> opensource software, and the license used. Restricting commercial use
> makes the software nonopensource by OSI definition and nonfree by Free
> Software Foundation's Free Software definition.
I think upstream only meant to make it clear to developers of
proprietary software that they need to ask for a special license if
they don't want to follow the GPL.
Regards,
--
Göran Weinholt <weinholt@debian.org>
Debian developer, sysadmin, netadmin
[signature.asc (application/pgp-signature, inline)]
Information forwarded to debian-bugs-dist@lists.debian.org, Matt Flax <flatmax@pgb.unsw.edu.au>:
Bug#328121; Package linuxsampler.
(full text, mbox, link).
Acknowledgement sent to Harri Järvi <harri.jarvi@ajatus.org>:
Extra info received and forwarded to list. Copy sent to Matt Flax <flatmax@pgb.unsw.edu.au>.
(full text, mbox, link).
Message #20 received at 328121@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):
On Wed, Sep 14, 2005 at 16:26:15 +0200, Göran Weinholt wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 13, 2005 at 05:54:35PM +0300, Harri Järvi wrote:
> > In addition there's a conflict between linuxsampler's aim to be an
> > opensource software, and the license used. Restricting commercial use
> > makes the software nonopensource by OSI definition and nonfree by Free
> > Software Foundation's Free Software definition.
>
> I think upstream only meant to make it clear to developers of
> proprietary software that they need to ask for a special license if
> they don't want to follow the GPL.
I wish it was so, but this is written on the project home page
at <http://www.linuxsampler.org/downloads.html>:
"License
LinuxSampler is licensed under the GNU GPL license with the exception
that COMMERCIAL USE of the souce code, libraries and applications is
NOT ALLOWED without prior written permission by the LinuxSampler
authors. If you have questions on the subject please contact us."
Yours,
Harri Järvi
Information forwarded to debian-bugs-dist@lists.debian.org, Matt Flax <flatmax@pgb.unsw.edu.au>:
Bug#328121; Package linuxsampler.
(full text, mbox, link).
Acknowledgement sent to Sven Luther <sven.luther@wanadoo.fr>:
Extra info received and forwarded to list. Copy sent to Matt Flax <flatmax@pgb.unsw.edu.au>.
(full text, mbox, link).
Message #25 received at 328121@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):
On Thu, Sep 15, 2005 at 08:03:46AM +0300, Harri Järvi wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 14, 2005 at 16:26:15 +0200, Göran Weinholt wrote:
> > On Tue, Sep 13, 2005 at 05:54:35PM +0300, Harri Järvi wrote:
>
> > > In addition there's a conflict between linuxsampler's aim to be an
> > > opensource software, and the license used. Restricting commercial use
> > > makes the software nonopensource by OSI definition and nonfree by Free
> > > Software Foundation's Free Software definition.
> >
> > I think upstream only meant to make it clear to developers of
> > proprietary software that they need to ask for a special license if
> > they don't want to follow the GPL.
>
> I wish it was so, but this is written on the project home page
> at <http://www.linuxsampler.org/downloads.html>:
>
> "License
>
> LinuxSampler is licensed under the GNU GPL license with the exception
> that COMMERCIAL USE of the souce code, libraries and applications is
> NOT ALLOWED without prior written permission by the LinuxSampler
> authors. If you have questions on the subject please contact us."
That is indeed non-free and fails DFSG #6, the package cannot be in main, but
could be in non-free maybe.
Friendly,
Sven Luther
Information forwarded to debian-bugs-dist@lists.debian.org, Matt Flax <flatmax@pgb.unsw.edu.au>:
Bug#328121; Package linuxsampler.
(full text, mbox, link).
Acknowledgement sent to Matt Flax <flatmax@ieee.org>:
Extra info received and forwarded to list. Copy sent to Matt Flax <flatmax@pgb.unsw.edu.au>.
(full text, mbox, link).
Message #30 received at 328121@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):
I have contacted the author and am waiting to see whether he will change
the license. If not then we will either remove or move it to non-free.
Matt
On Thu, Sep 15, 2005 at 10:50:12AM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 15, 2005 at 08:03:46AM +0300, Harri J?rvi wrote:
> > On Wed, Sep 14, 2005 at 16:26:15 +0200, G?ran Weinholt wrote:
> > > On Tue, Sep 13, 2005 at 05:54:35PM +0300, Harri J?rvi wrote:
> >
> > > > In addition there's a conflict between linuxsampler's aim to be an
> > > > opensource software, and the license used. Restricting commercial use
> > > > makes the software nonopensource by OSI definition and nonfree by Free
> > > > Software Foundation's Free Software definition.
> > >
> > > I think upstream only meant to make it clear to developers of
> > > proprietary software that they need to ask for a special license if
> > > they don't want to follow the GPL.
> >
> > I wish it was so, but this is written on the project home page
> > at <http://www.linuxsampler.org/downloads.html>:
> >
> > "License
> >
> > LinuxSampler is licensed under the GNU GPL license with the exception
> > that COMMERCIAL USE of the souce code, libraries and applications is
> > NOT ALLOWED without prior written permission by the LinuxSampler
> > authors. If you have questions on the subject please contact us."
>
> That is indeed non-free and fails DFSG #6, the package cannot be in main, but
> could be in non-free maybe.
>
> Friendly,
>
> Sven Luther
>
--
http://www.flatmax.org
Public Projects :
http://sourceforge.net/search/?type_of_search=soft&words=mffm
Information forwarded to debian-bugs-dist@lists.debian.org, Matt Flax <flatmax@pgb.unsw.edu.au>:
Bug#328121; Package linuxsampler.
(full text, mbox, link).
Acknowledgement sent to Humberto Massa Guimarães <humberto.massa@almg.gov.br>:
Extra info received and forwarded to list. Copy sent to Matt Flax <flatmax@pgb.unsw.edu.au>.
(full text, mbox, link).
Message #35 received at 328121@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):
> That is indeed non-free and fails DFSG #6, the package cannot
> be in main, but could be in non-free maybe.
No, this is really an additional restriction over the GPL, thus
rendering the software undistributable for everyone but the
original author.
--
HTH,
massa
Information forwarded to debian-bugs-dist@lists.debian.org, Matt Flax <flatmax@pgb.unsw.edu.au>:
Bug#328121; Package linuxsampler.
(full text, mbox, link).
Acknowledgement sent to Harri Järvi <harri.jarvi@ajatus.org>:
Extra info received and forwarded to list. Copy sent to Matt Flax <flatmax@pgb.unsw.edu.au>.
(full text, mbox, link).
Message #40 received at 328121@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):
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.
Yours,
Harri Järvi
[1]
http://sourceforge.net/mailarchive/forum.php?thread_id=8119452&forum_id=12792
Information forwarded to debian-bugs-dist@lists.debian.org, Matt Flax <flatmax@pgb.unsw.edu.au>:
Bug#328121; Package linuxsampler.
(full text, mbox, link).
Acknowledgement sent to Branden Robinson <branden@debian.org>:
Extra info received and forwarded to list. Copy sent to Matt Flax <flatmax@pgb.unsw.edu.au>.
(full text, mbox, link).
Message #45 received at 328121@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):
[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]
On Sat, Sep 17, 2005 at 10:31:30AM +0300, Harri Järvi wrote:
> 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.
[SNIP]
I agree with your assessment. I would direct the upstream authors to
David Wheeler's essay on this very subject:
http://www.dwheeler.com/essays/gpl-compatible.html
I will also note that by using the GPL, they will very likely get the
community's support in identifying any infringements that occur by
commercial distributors. I suspect this is less likely with a home-grown
license, which many sympathetic users may not take the time to understand.
Moreover, both the FSF and Harald Welte have successfully pursued
infringment claims against people who violate the GPL. According to Eben
Moglen, General Counsel of the FSF, they prefer to settle things simply by
asking for, and getting compliance with the license's terms[1][2]; Mr.
Welte has successfully gotten a court injunction on at least one occasion I
can think of[3].
[1] http://emoglen.law.columbia.edu/publications/lu-12.html
[2] http://emoglen.law.columbia.edu/publications/lu-13.html
[3] http://gpl-violations.org/news/20050414-fortinet-injunction.html
--
G. Branden Robinson | Build a fire for a man, and he'll
Debian GNU/Linux | be warm for a day. Set a man on
branden@debian.org | fire, and he'll be warm for the
http://people.debian.org/~branden/ | rest of his life. - Terry Pratchett
[signature.asc (application/pgp-signature, inline)]
Information forwarded to Matt Flax <flatmax@pgb.unsw.edu.au>:
Bug#328121; Package linuxsampler.
(full text, mbox, link).
Acknowledgement sent to Justin Pryzby <justinpryzby@users.sourceforge.net>:
Extra info received and forwarded to maintainer. Copy sent to Matt Flax <flatmax@pgb.unsw.edu.au>.
(full text, mbox, link).
Message #50 received at 328121-maintonly@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):
Hello Matt,
Have you thought about what to do about the linux sampler license
problem, bug #328121 [0]?
--
Clear skies,
Justin
References
[0] http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=328121
Acknowledgement sent to Matt Flax <flatmax@ieee.org>:
Extra info received and filed, but not forwarded.
(full text, mbox, link).
Message #55 received at 328121-quiet@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):
OK - no worries,
I will hang tight to hear if Chris replies to you Paul.
Matt
On Fri, Sep 30, 2005 at 03:58:44AM +0100, Paul Brossier wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> On Fri, Sep 30, 2005 at 12:36:37PM +1000, Matt Flax wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > yes I was thinking about removing it from the Debian release system.
> >
> > What about you Paul ?
>
> I have sent a private email with Christian. I am still hoping that he
> changes the README file in the CVS. Let's give him a few more days.
>
> > By the way, what is the process to request removal from the release
> > system ?
>
> file a bug against ftp.debian.org.
>
> cheers, piem
--
http://www.flatmax.org
Public Projects :
http://sourceforge.net/search/?type_of_search=soft&words=mffm
Acknowledgement sent to Paul Brossier <piem@debian.org>:
Extra info received and filed, but not forwarded.
(full text, mbox, link).
Message #60 received at 328121-quiet@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):
Hi all,
On Fri, Sep 30, 2005 at 12:36:37PM +1000, Matt Flax wrote:
> Hi,
>
> yes I was thinking about removing it from the Debian release system.
>
> What about you Paul ?
I have sent a private email with Christian. I am still hoping that he
changes the README file in the CVS. Let's give him a few more days.
> By the way, what is the process to request removal from the release
> system ?
file a bug against ftp.debian.org.
cheers, piem
Reply sent to Justin Pryzby <justinpryzby@users.sourceforge.net>:
You have taken responsibility.
(full text, mbox, link).
Notification sent to Justin Pryzby <justinpryzby@users.sourceforge.net>:
Bug acknowledged by developer.
(full text, mbox, link).
Message #65 received at 328121-done@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):
linuxsampler was removed from the Debian archive. Therefor I'm
closing the lingering bugs.
The associated removal message was:
[Date: Sun, 20 Nov 2005 10:04:50 -0800] [ftpmaster: Jeroen van Wolffelaar]
Removed the following packages from unstable:
linuxsampler | 0.3.cvs20050715+3-1 | source, alpha, arm, hppa, i386, ia64, mips, mipsel, powerpc, s390, sparc
Closed bugs: 336568
------------------- Reason -------------------
RoM; Legal issues
----------------------------------------------
--
Clear skies,
Justin
Bug archived.
Request was from Debbugs Internal Request <owner@bugs.debian.org>
to internal_control@bugs.debian.org.
(Sun, 17 Jun 2007 18:24:19 GMT) (full text, mbox, link).
Send a report that this bug log contains spam.
Debian bug tracking system administrator <owner@bugs.debian.org>.
Last modified:
Fri Jan 5 22:26:39 2018;
Machine Name:
buxtehude
Debian Bug tracking system
Debbugs is free software and licensed under the terms of the GNU
Public License version 2. The current version can be obtained
from https://bugs.debian.org/debbugs-source/.
Copyright © 1999 Darren O. Benham,
1997,2003 nCipher Corporation Ltd,
1994-97 Ian Jackson,
2005-2017 Don Armstrong, and many other contributors.