From: Tobias D. <tob...@gm...> - 2009-05-19 07:56:42
|
FYI and for the ML archives. ---------- Weitergeleitete Nachricht ---------- Betreff: LMMS customization project Datum: Dienstag, 19. Mai 2009 Von: Aaron Lovelace <aar...@gm...> An: tob...@gm... Hi Tobias, My name is Aaron Lovelace and I am working on a project involving LMMS, as you have discovered. I understand you have been in touch with the developer who I have working on the project. First of all, I want to say thank you for making such an awesome piece of software. I am a musician (not amazing, but I play for fun anyway) and have been using it a lot in the past few weeks since I discovered it... it is extremely addictive! As for my project, I was planning to use a re-branded version of LMMS as part of a product I am developing. Here are the details: I was originally planning to sell hip-hop beat and instrumental production tutorials (video screencasts) by themselves, but thought that offering a fully-featured sequencing system as part of the package would make the offer more attractive to beginners. I would like to re-brand LMMS as "Beat Machine Pro" as I think it is a name that is more marketable to the hip hop crowd. I don't plan on violating the GPL license and will make the source available for download. One question about this though: Does the source need to be available to anyone who visits the website, or can it be available just to customers? I can go either way, but I would appreciate the clarification. Please let me know if you have comments or questions. Thanks for your help! Best, Aaron Lovelace ------------------------------------------------------------- |
From: mifthbeat <pau...@ma...> - 2009-05-19 10:01:44
|
Why do you need to re-brand lmms? Just sell your tutorials and use lmms like some professionals make it with blender(www.blender.org). lmms is an open source project for everyone and you can use it for commercial purposes. On Tuesday 19 May 2009 11:56:34 Tobias Doerffel wrote: > Hi Tobias, > My name is Aaron Lovelace and I am working on a project involving LMMS, as > you have discovered. I understand you have been in touch with the developer > who I have working on the project. > > First of all, I want to say thank you for making such an awesome piece of > software. I am a musician (not amazing, but I play for fun anyway) and have > been using it a lot in the past few weeks since I discovered it... it is > extremely addictive! > > As for my project, I was planning to use a re-branded version of LMMS as > part of a product I am developing. Here are the details: > > I was originally planning to sell hip-hop beat and instrumental production > tutorials (video screencasts) by themselves, but thought that offering a > fully-featured sequencing system as part of the package would make the > offer more attractive to beginners. I would like to re-brand LMMS as "Beat > Machine Pro" as I think it is a name that is more marketable to the hip hop > crowd. > > I don't plan on violating the GPL license and will make the source > available for download. One question about this though: Does the source > need to be available to anyone who visits the website, or can it be > available just to customers? I can go either way, but I would appreciate > the clarification. > > Please let me know if you have comments or questions. Thanks for your help! > > Best, > > Aaron Lovelace |
From: A. T. F. <tre...@gm...> - 2009-05-19 15:34:55
|
Thanks for the FYI Toby. I'm 99% sure Aaron's source needs to be made public, although its unlikely he'll change anything but the logos and artwork (unless he's a Qt developer). A big hurray for the LMMS project. I'm excited. I'd be interested to see what look and feel changes are kicked back to the community (wink wink). With GPL code, it's often commercial use benefits the project as a whole. -Tres -- - Tre...@gm... |
From: Paul G. <dr...@gm...> - 2009-05-19 17:38:28
|
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. They are providing no additional value to LMMS and are simply applying a few hours of work to make money off of our contributions. It is sickening. If I was a thief like the guy in Honolulu then I could have sold "LMMS LB302+Controller Edition" a year ago. I think the best solution is to instead WORK WITH these people. If someone wants to release a version of LMMS called "Beat Machine Pro" then how about we add enough flexibility to the Theme so that "Beat Machine Pro" is shown all over the product. At least this way we can still push updates to the users, the authors section is intact, and these new users can contribute with LSP. Also, if we show accommodations on our side, then maybe these other developers will contribute changes back into mainline instead of to their various forks. -Paul On Tue, May 19, 2009 at 11:34 AM, A. Tres Finocchiaro <tre...@gm...> wrote: > Thanks for the FYI Toby. > > I'm 99% sure Aaron's source needs to be made public, although its unlikely > he'll change anything but the logos and artwork (unless he's a Qt > developer). > > A big hurray for the LMMS project. I'm excited. I'd be interested to see > what look and feel changes are kicked back to the community (wink wink). > With GPL code, it's often commercial use benefits the project as a whole. > > -Tres > > -- > - Tre...@gm... > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > Crystal Reports - New Free Runtime and 30 Day Trial > Check out the new simplified licensing option that enables > unlimited royalty-free distribution of the report engine > for externally facing server and web deployment. > http://p.sf.net/sfu/businessobjects > _______________________________________________ > Lmms-users mailing list > Lmm...@li... > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/lmms-users > > |
From: Aaron L. <aar...@gm...> - 2009-05-19 18:33:09
|
Hi guys, This is Aaron. I am not attempting to 'steal' anything nor take credit where it isn't due. I will leave all developer credits in tact and leave the copyright that the LMMS dev team has on the project in tact and in plain view. I will also make the source code available in a way that agrees completely with the GPL license. I am simply planning to package LMMS with a DVD and/or web-video tutorials for music production as an easily consumable "all-in-one" solution to aspiring music producers at a price they can afford. I will donate to the project if I don't lose my shirt attempting to market the final product. Frankly, I'm not a big corporation or anything, just a guy trying to pay my rent and do what I love. If the initial version of the product has any level of success (meaning I don't lose money), I will push major new updates and releases to customers, and will work with the development team to suggest improvements, report bugs, etc. Thanks for all of the comments. Aaron > > On Tue, May 19, 2009 at 10:38 AM, Paul Giblock <dr...@gm...> 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. They are providing no additional >> value to LMMS and are simply applying a few hours of work to make >> money off of our contributions. >> >> It is sickening. If I was a thief like the guy in Honolulu then I >> could have sold "LMMS LB302+Controller Edition" a year ago. >> >> I think the best solution is to instead WORK WITH these people. If >> someone wants to release a version of LMMS called "Beat Machine Pro" >> then how about we add enough flexibility to the Theme so that "Beat >> Machine Pro" is shown all over the product. At least this way we can >> still push updates to the users, the authors section is intact, and >> these new users can contribute with LSP. Also, if we show >> accommodations on our side, then maybe these other developers will >> contribute changes back into mainline instead of to their various >> forks. >> >> -Paul >> >> On Tue, May 19, 2009 at 11:34 AM, A. Tres Finocchiaro >> <tre...@gm...> wrote: >> > Thanks for the FYI Toby. >> > >> > I'm 99% sure Aaron's source needs to be made public, although its >> unlikely >> > he'll change anything but the logos and artwork (unless he's a Qt >> > developer). >> > >> > A big hurray for the LMMS project. I'm excited. I'd be interested to >> see >> > what look and feel changes are kicked back to the community (wink wink). >> > With GPL code, it's often commercial use benefits the project as a >> whole. >> > >> > -Tres >> > >> > -- >> > - Tre...@gm... >> > >> > >> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ >> > Crystal Reports - New Free Runtime and 30 Day Trial >> > Check out the new simplified licensing option that enables >> > unlimited royalty-free distribution of the report engine >> > for externally facing server and web deployment. >> > http://p.sf.net/sfu/businessobjects >> > _______________________________________________ >> > Lmms-users mailing list >> > Lmm...@li... >> > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/lmms-users >> > >> > >> > > |
From: A. T. F. <tre...@gm...> - 2009-05-19 22:18:23
|
On Tue, May 19, 2009 at 1:38 PM, Paul Giblock <dr...@gm...> 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. http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-3.0.txt 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. -Tres |
From: Aaron L. <aar...@gm...> - 2009-05-19 23:34:49
|
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. Aaron On Tue, May 19, 2009 at 3:18 PM, A. Tres Finocchiaro < tre...@gm...> wrote: > On Tue, May 19, 2009 at 1:38 PM, Paul Giblock <dr...@gm...> 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. > > http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-3.0.txt > > 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. > > -Tres > > |
From: Paul G. <dr...@gm...> - 2009-05-20 15:46:41
|
Yes. But Having a seperate brand will cause LMMS's userbase to split between "LMMS Users" and "BMP Users" or whatever.. My big fear is that users who start with BeatMachinePro or whatever will never learn about LSP. Even worse, if Aaron doesn't merge in all of our changes in future versions, then these users will never experience our cool new features. I am still sticking to my proposition: instead of forking LMMS, why don't we just make it easier for themes to override some of the text? This way the users WILL be using LMMS, instead, there will just be a beatmachinepro theme which is defaulted to. This way the user can upgrade to a newer LMMS, the beatmachinepro theme will remain in tact etc.. Hell, we ship the additional theme with our official build. Aaron will just modify the installer to default to the "beatmachinepro" theme. Again, I know that copyright is interesting. However, I thought that a copyright can still exist on the Brand. Look at firefox for example. -Paul On Tue, May 19, 2009 at 6:18 PM, A. Tres Finocchiaro <tre...@gm...> wrote: > On Tue, May 19, 2009 at 1:38 PM, Paul Giblock <dr...@gm...> 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. > > http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-3.0.txt > > 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. > > -Tres > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > Crystal Reports - New Free Runtime and 30 Day Trial > Check out the new simplified licensing option that enables > unlimited royalty-free distribution of the report engine > for externally facing server and web deployment. > http://p.sf.net/sfu/businessobjects > _______________________________________________ > Lmms-users mailing list > Lmm...@li... > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/lmms-users > > |
From: A. T. F. <tre...@gm...> - 2009-05-21 15:47:23
|
Paul, That's an interesting proposal. Aaron is creating a product and -- out of courtesy -- FYI-ing the author. The author FYI'd us out of courtesy as well so that it won't come as a surprise if we see LMMS "out there" rebranded. If Aaron's fork looks promising enough to merge back in (including theme support) we can visit that road when we get there. Many projects such as Aaron's fall short in the end, so lets focus on the excitement and set initiatives asside. Lets hope Aaron's project pays off, and we can be pretty sure the LMMS project will eventually benefit in the end. -Tres On Wed, May 20, 2009 at 11:46 AM, Paul Giblock <dr...@gm...> wrote: > Yes. But Having a seperate brand will cause LMMS's userbase to split > between "LMMS Users" and "BMP Users" or whatever.. My big fear is > that users who start with BeatMachinePro or whatever will never learn > about LSP. Even worse, if Aaron doesn't merge in all of our changes in > future versions, then these users will never experience our cool new > features. > > I am still sticking to my proposition: instead of forking LMMS, why > don't we just make it easier for themes to override some of the text? > This way the users WILL be using LMMS, instead, there will just be a > beatmachinepro theme which is defaulted to. This way the user can > upgrade to a newer LMMS, the beatmachinepro theme will remain in tact > etc.. Hell, we ship the additional theme with our official build. > Aaron will just modify the installer to default to the > "beatmachinepro" theme. > > Again, I know that copyright is interesting. However, I thought that a > copyright can still exist on the Brand. Look at firefox for example. > > -Paul > > On Tue, May 19, 2009 at 6:18 PM, A. Tres Finocchiaro > <tre...@gm...> wrote: > > On Tue, May 19, 2009 at 1:38 PM, Paul Giblock <dr...@gm...> 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. > > > > http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-3.0.txt > > > > 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. > > > > -Tres > > > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > Crystal Reports - New Free Runtime and 30 Day Trial > > Check out the new simplified licensing option that enables > > unlimited royalty-free distribution of the report engine > > for externally facing server and web deployment. > > http://p.sf.net/sfu/businessobjects > > _______________________________________________ > > Lmms-users mailing list > > Lmm...@li... > > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/lmms-users > > > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > Crystal Reports - New Free Runtime and 30 Day Trial > Check out the new simplified licensing option that enables > unlimited royalty-free distribution of the report engine > for externally facing server and web deployment. > http://p.sf.net/sfu/businessobjects > _______________________________________________ > Lmms-users mailing list > Lmm...@li... > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/lmms-users > -- - Tre...@gm... |