Hi guys,

Thanks for all of your comments. We've got threads in two distribution lists though and I think we should kick it over to the lmms-devel list.

I can understand how some people could become upset at the idea of me re-branding and re-packaging LMMS, but I agree with those who think that it will be a very positive thing. To summarize, here are some of the benefits as mentioned by other community members:

1. Having a commercial arm of the project can result in a more stable project in many ways.

2. If things go well, I am sure the customers will have many requests for additional features, plug-ins, etc. which I would probably have developed and might distribute back to the LMMS community freely.

3. Re-branding has two immediate benefits. As stated by Alwin, derived products with identical branding could confuse users and negatively impact the LMMS brand. I will obviously do my best to avoid this situation, but it is true that you never know what might happen if sh*t should hit the fan in some way. If that happens, at least it will just be my butt on the line and not the entire image and reputation of LMMS. Second it would allow me to make the product more marketable.

As stated in previous messages, I will abide by the GPL license and do all that is required by it. I will also give back to the community should the project become successful (in the form of monetary donation, bug reporting, etc). I really don't want to become a bad guy here, and would like to work with everyone to make sure it is a mutually beneficial thing.

Thanks again for all of the feedback. I really had no idea this would start such a heated debate, but I'm glad we're talking about it.


On Tue, May 19, 2009 at 3:18 PM, A. Tres Finocchiaro <tres.finocchiaro@gmail.com> wrote:
On Tue, May 19, 2009 at 1:38 PM, Paul Giblock <drfaygo@gmail.com> wrote:
Toby -

Do you have a Copyright on LMMS?   Everyone who is wanting to make
simple cosmetic changes an claim a new product are committing
copyright infringement I believe.

Paul, if you read the General Public License, it makes a point to mention the legalities of selling the software.  Companies like Novell and RedHat currently use this to sell a GPL product by charging for their versions of Linux.


It is perfectly legal for Aaron to repackage and sell LMMS so as long as code changes are republished (which would be in his best interest anyways).  His artwork can be separately licensed under what he chooses (unless he borrows that too, then he'll be responsible for abiding to that license too).

What is more viral to a community is a license that does not have strict requirements of code "kick-backs" (Like BSD, MIT, Apache).

Apple chose FreeBSD for they're OS X operating system.  The BSD license allows them to close the source and contribute what they want to the FreeBSD project.  The GPL license does not allow this.