From: Ben <ben...@gm...> - 2012-03-16 01:00:53
|
On Tue, 6 Mar 2012 03:02:12 -0800 (PST) musikBear <mk...@ho...> said > Perhaps this https://sourceforge.net/apps/phpbb/lmms/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=490 > has passed by your radar? > A year or so the situation around the sample packs was raised discussed and > .. dropped like a scolding potato - eg the issue was left un-solved. I don't see why this should be a big issue. Any "assets" distributed with LMMS just need to be specifically mentioned in a license somewhere. I would hope that sample banks, patch banks, demo songs et al. are in fact actually licensed from the creators for distribution with LMMS... The best situation would be for all "assets" to be CC of some kind; that's the most appropriate and flexible license for "created things". As I mentioned in my reply to that post, NOBODY on Earth under any law which I'm even vaguely aware of, allows the programmers/developers/publishers/sellers of ANY software to hold any rights whatsoever to works created with software tools designed for such purpose. Craftsman doesn't own your house just because it was built with their tools. -- News is what somebody somewhere wants to suppress; all the rest is advertising. - Alfred Charles William Harmsworth, 1st Viscount Northcliffe, British newspaper magnate |
From: David G. <dg...@gm...> - 2012-03-16 06:50:37
|
On 16 March 2012 01:00, Ben <ben...@gm...> wrote: > As I mentioned in my reply to that post, NOBODY on Earth under any law > which I'm even vaguely aware of, allows the > programmers/developers/publishers/sellers of ANY software to hold any > rights whatsoever to works created with software tools designed for > such purpose. Craftsman doesn't own your house just because it was > built with their tools. This turns out not to be historically the case. In the late 1970s and early 1980s, works compiled with Microsoft's BASIC compiler could only be sold with 9% (IIRC) going to Microsoft. This was per the terms of the licence for the compiler. So it's been done before. - d. |
From: musikBear <mk...@ho...> - 2012-03-16 10:58:31
|
I think we need to focus on issues that we actually can handle and must handle. That would be licence for lmms' soundpacks and or anything else in the package, and if -anything- here cant be licenced, it must be removed. Everything in the complete package -must- be CC or likewise. If lmms include content that can be deemed pirated in -any- way, then anything created with lmms would be tainted That issue! -and that alone would be what this is about. But this -must- be addressed ! David Gerard-2 wrote: > > On 16 March 2012 01:00, Ben <ben...@gm...> wrote: > >> As I mentioned in my reply to that post, NOBODY on Earth under any law >> which I'm even vaguely aware of, allows the >> programmers/developers/publishers/sellers of ANY software to hold any >> rights whatsoever to works created with software tools designed for >> such purpose. Craftsman doesn't own your house just because it was >> built with their tools. > > > This turns out not to be historically the case. In the late 1970s and > early 1980s, works compiled with Microsoft's BASIC compiler could only > be sold with 9% (IIRC) going to Microsoft. This was per the terms of > the licence for the compiler. So it's been done before. > > > - d. > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > This SF email is sponsosred by: > Try Windows Azure free for 90 days Click Here > http://p.sf.net/sfu/sfd2d-msazure > _______________________________________________ > LMMS-devel mailing list > LMM...@li... > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/lmms-devel > > ----- Hope this helped BR. --------------------- Tutorials and some music on : http://www.youtube.com/user/bearsoundz -- View this message in context: http://old.nabble.com/Subject%3A--nasty-situation---acta-in-motion-tp33514462p33516289.html Sent from the lmms-devel mailing list archive at Nabble.com. |
From: David G. <dg...@gm...> - 2012-03-16 11:02:57
|
On 16 March 2012 10:58, musikBear <mk...@ho...> wrote: > I think we need to focus on issues that we actually can handle and must > handle. That would be licence for lmms' soundpacks and or anything else in > the package, and if -anything- here cant be licenced, it must be removed. > Everything in the complete package -must- be CC or likewise. If lmms include > content that can be deemed pirated in -any- way, then anything created with > lmms would be tainted > That issue! -and that alone would be what this is about. > But this -must- be addressed ! Public domain or equivalent. Requiring anything created using LMMS samples to be CC-licenced would be quite bad for the application. - d. |