Never mind that last remark: libartsc is actually LGPL, even though the
copyright file of the ubuntu and debian packages suggest otherwise.
So it looks to me like all we'd need is a version of libgig under the
'GPL 2.0 + "commercial exception"'-license to be able to distribute LS
in multiverse.
-
Hm, after looking a bit more closely, it seems liblinuxsampler links to
libartsc, and the latter is GPL.
Looks like either libartsc needs to be released under the LGPL,
linuxsampler should be released under the GPL, or libartsc should be
removed from linuxsampler.
--
[needs-packaging] linuxsampl
Easier than using ./edit-deb-control.sh, you can do a 'dpkg -i --force-
depends liblinuxsampler_0.5.1-1_i386.deb'
About the licensing issues: obviously software under the 'GPL 2.0 +
"commercial exception"' is incompatible with the GPL (but not the LGPL).
They seem to claim that since linuxsampler
This seems to be an appropriate place to post instructions on how to
install linuxsampler using the packages from the official site:
1. Download the latest liblinuxsampler and linuxsampler .deb files from
http://download.linuxsampler.org/packages/debian/
2. Save the edit-deb-control.sh script fro
I see. Although I'm not a layer, and that this might change from country
to country, my feeling would be that the "good will" interpretation of
their addition would be an override of the incompatible GPL section (but
of course the license would not be GPL then). Moreover, it might not
follow the st
The licensing issues are well known upstream, and have been discussed
multiple times on the mailing lists (I'd point you at the archives, but
sourceforge doesn't maintain stable URLs for mailing list messages:
search the archives for 2005 (and early 2006)). At one point it was
thought that the res
So maybe you could post a bug in linuxsampler tracker. It is sad that we
cannot include such an open source software while we include a lot of
proprietary ones, that might also have inconsistancies in licensing, but
that we do not see.
--
[needs-packaging] linuxsampler
https://bugs.launchpad.net/
The licensing of linuxsampler remains the same as that described in bug
#84451. The problem is not that it is non-free (as there is a wide
variety of non-free software in multiverse), but that the license is
considered to be self-contradictory. It both claims to be GPL (and is
largely based on GP
You're right, qsampler is broken without the linuxsampler package (bug
#36326). I can't see a reason why this shouldn't belong in multiverse.
** Changed in: ubuntu
Status: Incomplete => Confirmed
--
[needs-packaging] linuxsampler
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/252330
You received this bu
Thank you for editing my post. I did not found the guidelines
previously, probably I failed to look properly.
The problem with the current front-end package is that it is useless
without the sampler engine itself. But the sampler engine .deb from the
linuxsampler web site uses a library versioning
I have edited the report to comply with
https://wiki.ubuntu.com/UbuntuDevelopment/NewPackages . Please take a
look at the qsampler package (and gigedit) which seems to be an official
linuxsampler frontend already in Ubuntu. Does this satisfy your
requirements, or is packaging of linuxsampler itself
11 matches
Mail list logo
