[Ardour-Dev] PACKAGER_README

[Paul Davis]

On Sun, 2008-11-30 at 13:43 +0100, schoappied wrote:
> Hi devs,
> 
> Little comment about the content of the file 'PACKAGER_README', quote:
> 
> > (1) VST SUPPORT
> >
> > You may not distribute binaries of Ardour with VST support. Doing so
> > is a violation of the license agreement for the Steinberg VST SDK. If
> > you are found to be distributing such binaries, you risk both
> > prosecution by Steinberg and public humiliation by me.
> especially this sentence:
> 
> > you risk public humiliation by me.
> 
> I find this sentence unnecessarily  hostile/ aggressive. IMHO there is 
> never a reason to public humiliate someone.  That's why they closed the 
> 'Abu Graib' prison in Iraq.... ;)

I am afraid I disagree. I have had already had to remind at least a half
dozen people that they have violated both the GPL and/or Steinberg's
license, even when explicit instructions were in place that this was
illegal. I also find (even humorously) equating the possibility of me
identifying a license violator on ardour.org with the grotesque abuse of
human rights perpetrated by the USA in Iraq to be extremely offensive.

> Moreover such a statement is unprofessional imho.

I have never been a fan of convention. I really don't care too much
about other people's perception of what is professional or not. However,
I do care very much about licenses and honoring their terms, which I
feel are one very real sign of professionalism. If people cannot read
the very simple instructions - you may not do this - and then go ahead
and do it anyway, then public humiliation is what they deserve. It
normally doesn't come to that - a reminder that they are violating 1 or
more licenses has always been enough (so far) to make them stop doing
it.

If nobody had actually violated these instructions, this terminology
would not be there. But it seems as if a mere instruction that something
is against the terms of the license is not enough. Since I don't intend
to waste money taking people to court over this issue, public
humiliation will have to do as the extra dis-incentive.

It is true, however, that the text is innaccurate in another way. It is
more likely that they are violating the GPL of Ardour and/or some of the
libraries that Ardour depends upon, rather than the license for the
Steinberg SDK, and that should be changed.

--p