LinuxSampler is proprietary and it's users commit copyright infringement

[Lyberta]

I decided to make a dedicated topic for this. Basically, if you look at this page: http://linuxsampler.org/downloads.html you'll see this:

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 prior written permission by the LinuxSampler authors. If you have questions on the subject, that are not yet covered by the FAQ, please contact us.

Point 1. You can't just amend GPL
Here: https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-3.0.en.html it says:

Everyone is permitted to copy and distribute verbatim copies of this license document, but changing it is not allowed.

You can't just change GPL.

Point 2. Prohibiting commercial use makes the software proprietary
A software is free if it gives 4 fundamental freedoms to it's users. https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html
Prohibiting commercial use removes freedoms 2 and 3. Freedom to redistribute and freedom to distribute modified copies.

Point 3. You can't link GPL and proprietary software together.
Again, here http://linuxsampler.org/downloads.html it says that LinuxSampler links to libgig and this is mandatory. LinuxSampler is proprietary, libgig is GPL and GPL prohibits linking to proprietary software. So the LS devs breached the GPL and commit copyright infringement.

What can you do

• Contact the devs and inform about this. I've tried to register on their forum but it seems to have many anti-spam features and my posts are yet to be published.
• Remove LinuxSampler from repositories. I urge anyone who maintains a Linux distribution to remove LinuxSampler from their repository or at least explicitly mark it as non-free.
• Remove references to LinuxSampler from http://libremusicproduction.com/ I've already contacted them but have yet to see the reply.
• Contact organizations that deal with GPL violations, such as http://gpl-violations.org/ If the devs are not going to change the licenses, a legal action must take place.

[sysrqer]

You could be right in all your points but I completely disagree with your action statements. You assume we, and all distros, are against proprietary software.

[rghvdberg]

You could be right in all your points but I completely disagree with your action statements. You assume we, and all distros, are against proprietary software.

I think FaTony is saying that the licensing of LinuxSampler is faulty, not the usage of proprietary software.

[Lyberta]

I think FaTony is saying that the licensing of LinuxSampler is faulty, not the usage of proprietary software.

Both.

[davephillips]

If you spoke to the LinuxSampler developers instead of this forum...

Thanks for saving me (and probably others) the time to write the same message.

Also, thanks very much for the update on activity in the LS camp re: that license. I didn't know it was a working issue for them, I'm glad to hear they're trying to resolve it.

Best,

dp

[davephillips]

Also, a note to the OP.

@FaTony - Please don't take my message as a discouragement to your enthusiasm for the principles and practice of free software. I'm happy to see it, and I agree that we must be vigilant about protecting our rights.

Best,

dp

[Drumfix]

The funny thing is that nobody in the world is currently allowed to distribute a linuxsampler binary without explicit permission by the 4 libgig authors. Not even the 3 libgig developers who are also developers of linuxsampler without permission by the 4th

[sysrqer]

I think FaTony is saying that the licensing of LinuxSampler is faulty, not the usage of proprietary software.

I understand that but whatever the state of the licence I do not want to be restricted from using it.

[Drumfix]

@falkTx: No. it is illegal. Linuxsampler (or better liblinuxsampler.so) is linked against libgig. The license of linuxsampler is not GPL compatible, the license of libgig is GPL. The GPL does not allow to distribute binaries that mix GPL code with GPL incompatible code => illegal.

[Drumfix]

Even if you don't like it, but the situation is very clear.

I wouldn't care too much about legal actions, though. Legal actions can only be taken by the copyright holders whose rights have been violated, and 3 of the 4 copyright holders of the libgig source code are linuxsampler developers...

[rghvdberg]

I think FaTony is saying that the licensing of LinuxSampler is faulty, not the usage of proprietary software.

Both.

Please don't deny me my freedom to use proprietary software

[Lyberta]

Even if you don't like it, but the situation is very clear.

I wouldn't care too much about legal actions, though. Legal actions can only be taken by the copyright holders whose rights have been violated, and 3 of the 4 copyright holders of the libgig source code are linuxsampler developers...

Here's what they say on their site: http://linuxsampler.org/faq.html#ls_bre ... ig_license

Doesn't LinuxSampler illegally link against libgig?

No! LinuxSampler does not "illegally" link against libgig, since the copyright holder (in this case of libgig) has all rights of his work and thus is not bound to his own license terms. The sole purpose of license terms is to grant other people certain rights to use the work.

Yes, they are not bound since they own exclusive rights but all the users are.

[Drumfix]

Just digged into libgig code and licensing. The part contributed by the 4th (the non-linuxsampler) developer is LGPL, so the 3 linuxsampler developers are allowed to distribute linuxsampler as long as libgig is a used as shared library (which is the normal case) AND the 3 linuxsampler developers agree
to distribute libgig under a different license which then must be compatible with the LGPL.

But, as you say right, it is not allowed for anyone else.

What most people are not aware of is that contribution to a project does not make one the owner of the project. One still only has the copyright on the own contribution. Otherwise it would be easy to just add a patch to some project and the claim: "Wooh i contributed, so i'm an owner now and can distribute the whole thing under any license i like." This is NOT the case. Imagine you provide a patch to the linux kernel

The simple solution for the linuxsampler problem would be that the 3 linuxdevelopers agree to change the license of their parts of libgig also to LGPL.

[Lyberta]

there's no point of discussing this here, the LS devs won't see this.

Too bad. I've heard that they plan to move away from GPL to their own license.

[Lyberta]

Oh, by the way, Carla uses LinuxSampler backend. I couldn't find the license of Carla, but I think you should remove LinuxSampler and maybe use SFZero instead.