hkborn

I've a number of devices: a 4t synology unit for storage a voyage mpd for server and player a linn akurate for server and player a dBpoweramp for cd ripping a logitech squeezebox for radio audacious on ubuntu studio built on intel i5 macbook pro with ssd n 16g ram as player uln-8 as dac n preamp lavry gold as dac different combination gives different sound which is the ideal one? audacious appears to be the one i play most

linn d/s can do most in your list

"Sorry, but this is not true. It holds only for dual-licensed projects, rather rare due to the strict authorship constraints. Why do you talk in general, please give us specific examples." if i develop a linux based music player consisted of 3 core parts, namely linux, squeezebox server, xyz player(my own development). This project is an open source project. People are free to download for personal use. If a manufacturer wants to build a unit based on my project and sell to the public. I'll be fine to let this manufacturer to do so if he make the source code open. Or as the owner of the project I'll "grant him the right" for using my work by waiving my right as project owner to sue him for breaching the license terms. However, this does not exclude the manufacturer from being sued by squeezebox or linux for not releasing the source code.

"Otherwise you may be setting yourself up for a libel action" i welcome such an action

"GPL software does not cary with it any legal or moral obligation to pay anyone anything." Correct statement if users make their project open source. Users not making their projects open source are basically in breach of license terms. Paying to a particular open source project set them free from that particular open source project only.

"After all, the licensee/buyer may be an enterprise worth millions or billions, so why risk so much when minimizing that risk is relatively easy?" real good enterprise should develop it's own software in the first place; or make the project open source if they wish to adopt open source. Using open source without making it open source risk themselves in breach of license terms as in normal case each open project may comprise works from a couple of projects

I'm a bit disappointed at the quality of discussions here in this thread(only a few to the exception). I reiterate my stance here: open source projects are free to everyone, people(in particular the users) should make donations to show support; people of open source project making profit from using open source project(other people's work)should have more moral obligations to make donations; commercial application (not open source project) using free open source project should make sure that they have observed the license requirement, remember a consolidated program may comprise a number of licenses from different project owners, license from one owner not necessary exempt you from the other owner

conspiracy is always a good game to play with. pls face the issue directly and not side tracking it to be honest, i have enough money for the rest of my life and it's way too expensive to hire me..... i'm the Robinhood if you like

vortexjr, i post my thread here to raise a general concern to the abuse of open source project while I take voyage as an example. however, from your very first post here you put an attack on my intention by saying "BTW I took note of the fact that you seem to have some kind of private show room and this makes me very suspicious of your intensions" while i'm not making specific claims on vortexbox(I have no proof of any wrongdoing on their part), you are more focused on defending vortexbox than making your stance on open source projects being abused, it's so weird.

voyage build mpd on voyage linux to get voyage mpd. mpd, voyage are all open source project, developer of either have the right to see whether commercial users have observed the license terms.... "commercial use of open source project" is heading of this thread

pls see 4est's post immediately b4 my "i doubt" post why mpd not included???? is it not open source??

Jud, if you add on my comments "On the side of open source project, I fully appreciate the contributions made by mpd, vortexbox and voyage linux.They still remain free to the public. And indeed, open source projects make the world more beautiful. As to commercial application of open source projects, I would think it's a win win case as long as proper license requirements are complied with. It's obvious that mpd, vortexbox and voyage are all open source projects. They have every right to distribute for commercial applications. Core to the issue may be the use of other's work, only the project owner knows where his source code comes from; by own development? by using/modifying open source work? Unless we examine the source code line by line, we can't have a valid judgement. Back to my first post on this thread, i urge commercial application of open source be done right. And please be kind to developer of open source project if you make profit from their hard work!!!!" then you may have to amend your comments.while vortexjr made some specific allegations, he'd better refer to specific wordings, not impression or his own inference My doubt is in response to "Who is to say that they have not? From what I have seen, they are not hiding and I have never heard anyone (besides this thread) complaining about the use of MPD on these servers. For that matter, I cannot see its use as anything but beneficial to the MPD project as a whole."

vortecjr, Pls quote which part in this forum i "claims that Vortexbox builders somehow have an obligation to make donations to Voyage and or Voyage-MPD" As i said "only the project owner knows where his source code comes from; by own development? by using/modifying open source work? Unless we examine the source code line by line, we can't have a valid judgement." If you state here openly that "vortexbox is not based on and is not using any part of Voyage and or Voyage-MPD to my knowledge", then it's up to voyage project to determine their stance. What i say here is commercial users have to observe open source license rules, the very basic rule is to make their project open source, if not, then it may be in breach of relevant rules. I just found it strange to note the "sour grape" comment prior to any specific music server being mentioned

Thanks for your comments lintweaker. The reason i voice out for open source developers being that i intend to build a simple music server based on voyage mpd and i asked Punky Tse on copyright issue, he told me that i'm free to use his work and the only requirement is to make source code public. He also points out the project welcomes voluntary donations or purchase software or hardware from his web-store as alternative means of support. When i know those expensive music server out in the market using open source project but appears the lack of proper disclosure/not paying tiny license fee... I feel angry and want to bring this issue for open discussion. You may notice the lack of sympathy here in the forum and not many get to the core of the issue.... Thanks again for your voice!!!!

My thoughts: On the side of open source project, I fully appreciate the contributions made by mpd, vortexbox and voyage linux.They still remain free to the public. And indeed, open source projects make the world more beautiful. As to commercial application of open source projects, I would think it's a win win case as long as proper license requirements are complied with. It's obvious that mpd, vortexbox and voyage are all open source projects. They have every right to distribute for commercial applications. Core to the issue may be the use of other's work, only the project owner knows where his source code comes from; by own development? by using/modifying open source work? Unless we examine the source code line by line, we can't have a valid judgement. Back to my first post on this thread, i urge commercial application of open source be done right. And please be kind to developer of open source project if you make profit from their hard work!!!!