I cannot push any patch depending on FluidSynth without having my rights automatically terminated again.

Then this PR is void. Commit project suicide elsewhere, please.

Could you explain what does that mean? What is it that you do not understand?

Yes, but I will only explain it once, and I have no interest in a discussion.

If any contributor is going to create a conquest where he/she must hold themselves in GPL violation by strict adherence to the discrimination clause, the unravelling effect is going to cut off the nose, despite the face of said project.

But it's a license, right? We need to follow it, right? Yes. However... although the long-term effect of this conquest... of the discriminatory words in GPL2 certainly affect us all, this isn't the time nor the place for anyone to prove a point about the GPL discrimination clause. The words in the GPL were intended to protect freedoms, not continually loophole projects into extinction. Removing fluidsynth from our project is an example of this, where we're deliberately removing a feature in speculation of an undecided upstream license ambiguity.

In the direct case of fluidsynth, a legally valid yet 100% regressive approach at compliance simply is suicide. Even if merits are founded in good faith, but if the execution seems targeted directly at the projects these freedoms were intended to protect, you've fucked up.

Although LMMS is tremendously lucky to finally regain a developer that actually does perform upstream code review, care about strict adherence and focus on these violations... although this insight is going to benefit the upstream libraries as well as LMMS for years to come, the severities imposed by this witchhunt are purely self-inflicted. The only report of violation is coming from the project itself. To put Debian and LMMS on the same playing field as "intentional repeat offenders" is taking contract law to a new low as it allows the enforcer to removing intent, remove merit, remove motive and worst, remove judgement, which are weighing factors in any law, in any court proceeding.

So in summary, I will continue to decline each PR that puts speculative violations in higher regard than the project itself. If this continues, I will also revoke your commit access to the project.

Edit: If a library does turn out to be in direct, deliberate GPL violation, LMMS will certainly do what's needed moving forward to unwind said library from the codebase. In the case of fluidsynth, we should monitor the conversation at the Debian mailing list, linked in the first post.

Uh oh!

fluidsynth license #3490

Description

Metadata

Metadata

Assignees

Labels

Type

Projects

Milestone

Relationships

Development

Issue actions