|54 earlier messages|
|Hans-Christoph Steiner||Oct 25, 2011 12:44 pm|
|Mathieu Bouchard||Oct 25, 2011 12:47 pm|
|Jonathan Wilkes||Oct 25, 2011 2:02 pm|
|Mathieu Bouchard||Oct 25, 2011 2:08 pm|
|Simon Wise||Oct 25, 2011 5:51 pm|
|Jonathan Wilkes||Oct 25, 2011 6:53 pm|
|Simon Wise||Oct 25, 2011 7:32 pm|
|Hans-Christoph Steiner||Oct 25, 2011 8:27 pm|
|Mathieu Bouchard||Oct 25, 2011 9:26 pm|
|Mathieu Bouchard||Oct 25, 2011 9:28 pm|
|Marvin Humphrey||Oct 25, 2011 10:20 pm|
|Jonathan Wilkes||Oct 25, 2011 11:04 pm|
|Andy Farnell||Oct 25, 2011 11:08 pm|
|Max||Oct 26, 2011 12:54 am|
|Simon Wise||Oct 26, 2011 3:40 am|
|Mathieu Bouchard||Oct 26, 2011 7:54 am|
|Jonathan Wilkes||Oct 26, 2011 7:58 am|
|Mathieu Bouchard||Oct 26, 2011 8:09 am|
|Hans-Christoph Steiner||Oct 26, 2011 9:42 am|
|Ricardo Fabbri||Oct 26, 2011 12:03 pm|
|Mathieu Bouchard||Oct 26, 2011 12:22 pm|
|Andy Farnell||Oct 26, 2011 1:48 pm|
|Simon Wise||Oct 26, 2011 6:26 pm|
|Simon Wise||Oct 26, 2011 6:34 pm|
|Roman Haefeli||Oct 27, 2011 1:04 am|
|i go bananas||Oct 27, 2011 1:52 am|
|Andy Farnell||Oct 27, 2011 2:39 am|
|i go bananas||Oct 27, 2011 3:00 am|
|Andy Farnell||Oct 27, 2011 3:17 am|
|i go bananas||Oct 27, 2011 7:15 am|
|Pierre Massat||Oct 27, 2011 7:26 am|
|Hans-Christoph Steiner||Oct 27, 2011 8:01 am|
|Andy Farnell||Oct 30, 2011 12:52 am|
|Rick||Oct 30, 2011 3:57 am|
|Mathieu Bouchard||Oct 30, 2011 8:42 am|
|Georg Bosch||Oct 30, 2011 2:39 pm|
|Andy Farnell||Oct 30, 2011 4:22 pm|
|i go bananas||Oct 31, 2011 7:49 am|
|Mathieu Bouchard||Oct 31, 2011 7:55 am|
|Hans-Christoph Steiner||Oct 31, 2011 7:58 am|
|i go bananas||Oct 31, 2011 8:04 am|
|i go bananas||Oct 31, 2011 8:20 am|
|Jonathan Wilkes||Oct 31, 2011 8:31 am|
|i go bananas||Oct 31, 2011 8:37 am|
|Olivier B||Nov 2, 2011 5:01 am|
|Jonathan Wilkes||Nov 2, 2011 7:03 am|
|Olivier B||Nov 3, 2011 4:49 pm|
|i go bananas||Nov 4, 2011 12:28 am|
|Olivier B||Nov 4, 2011 1:29 am|
|Jonathan Wilkes||Nov 4, 2011 7:16 am|
|Mathieu Bouchard||Nov 4, 2011 8:29 am|
|Mathieu Bouchard||Nov 4, 2011 8:39 am|
|Jonathan Wilkes||Nov 4, 2011 8:51 am|
|Mathieu Bouchard||Nov 4, 2011 9:32 am|
|Andy Farnell||Nov 4, 2011 1:19 pm|
|Subject:||Re: [PD] expr alternative|
|From:||Jonathan Wilkes (janc...@yahoo.com)|
|Date:||Nov 4, 2011 7:16:34 am|
________________________________ From: Olivier B <lamo...@gmail.com> To: i go bananas <hard...@gmail.com> Cc: Jonathan Wilkes <janc...@yahoo.com>; PD-List <pd-l...@iem.at> Sent: Friday, November 4, 2011 4:29 AM Subject: Re: [PD] expr alternative
2011/11/4 i go bananas <hard...@gmail.com>
apple just rang me.
as andy predicted, they are still being highly cagey and will not give a yes/no
answer to me. grrr.
however, what they told me, was to go part of the way through developer
registration, so i could read the "ios_program_standard_agreement", in which
case i would "find what i need to know".
here's the clause that pertains to FOSS licensing:
"3.3.20 If Your Application includes any FOSS, You agree to comply with all
applicable FOSS licensing terms. You also agree not to use any FOSS in the
development of Your Application in such a way that would cause the non-FOSS
portions of the Apple Software to be subject to any FOSS licensing terms or
so, to my simple mind, it appears that LGPL IS allowed in iOS applications, as
long as you make the source available in a way that is LGPL compliant.
the only thing that bothers me, is this section of the iOS agreement:
"7.1 Delivery of Freely Available Licensed Applications via the App Store;
Certificates If Your Application qualifies as a Licensed Application, it is eligible for
delivery to end-users via the App Store by Apple and/or an Apple Subsidiary. If
You would like Apple and/or an Apple Subsidiary to deliver Your Licensed
Application or authorize additional content, functionality or services You make
available in Your Licensed Application through the use of the In App Purchase
API to end-users for free (no charge) via the App Store, then You appoint Apple
and Apple Subsidiaries as Your legal agent pursuant to the terms of Schedule 1,
for Licensed Applications designated by You as free of charge applications.
If Your Application qualifies as a Licensed Application and You intend to charge
end-users a fee of any kind for Your Licensed Application or within Your
Licensed Application through the use of the In App Purchase API, You must enter
into a separate agreement (Schedule 2) with Apple and/or an Apple Subsidiary
before any such commercial distribution of Your Licensed Application may take
place via the App Store or before any such commercial delivery of additional
content, functionality or services for which you charge end-users a fee may be
authorized through the use of the In App Purchase API in Your Licensed
i'm not sure if those clauses have any effect on using LGPL code?
Anyway, this is the information i have so far, and i thought i should share it.
It appears to me that if Mr Yadegari and IRCAM are willing to license expr under
the LGPL, then there's a good chance that the 'full' vanilla distribution would
be allowed in iOS applications.
it's very hard for me to continue looking into this matter, because there are
some fairly significant moral issues and despite my laughing at people a little
bit, i actually do think these things through, and it's a bit of a difficult
if people are following this issue, and just not saying anything, then it would
help to get a clearer consensus of the 'community view' here, as i feel very
uncomfortable about pushing this issue if i am going against the general
to outline so far, there seem to be 3 main options:
1) leave expr as GPL
2) take up Mr Yadegari's offer to re-license under the LGPL
3) raise some money or incentive for Mr Yadegari to re-write expr code to be BSD
3) I offer 10€... who's next ?
I'll put up $200 for a 3-clause-BSD-licensed [expr] family replacement where 3 /
2 = 1.5
On Fri, Nov 4, 2011 at 8:50 AM, Olivier B <lamo...@gmail.com> wrote:
2011/11/2 Jonathan Wilkes <janc...@yahoo.com>
________________________________ From: Olivier B <lamo...@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PD] expr alternative
Just to say that, even if my patchs are published under GPL, as I definitely
need my lines to be straight (or not aliased), I would prefer [expr] to be under
BSD, like Pd-Vanilla is...
What does the license have to do with straight lines and aliasing?
I've certainly done a private joke only to myself... :-/
I just wanted to say that I like my Pd patches to be tidy... to have their lines
(or wires, I don't know the word used in english) perfectly straight... And for the same reason, it disturbs me to know that Pd-vanilla doesn't offers
the same license for all of its code... it makes disorder... (but don't worry for me... every day, I'm getting better (damed, how it's hard
to try to make humor in a foreign language :-p ) )
2011/10/31 i go bananas <hard...@gmail.com>
that's what i have just asked about.
if you read back about halfway up the thread, max posted a mail saying that
IRCAM are willing to change the license to LGPL.
so i'm now wondering, that of course it is a hassle to contact all the original
authors, but if none of them have moral views against BSD, then maybe that would
be an easier course of action that code rewrite.
On Tue, Nov 1, 2011 at 12:31 AM, Jonathan Wilkes <janc...@yahoo.com> wrote:
Wouldn't you need to get permission from Ircam, too?
They are listed as a copyrightholder, for example, in vexp.c.
There is also the following list of authors: * Authors: Maurizio De Cecco, Francois Dechelle, Enzo Maggi, Norbert Schnell.
________________________________ From: i go bananas <hard...@gmail.com> To: Hans-Christoph Steiner <ha...@at.or.at> Cc: PD-List <pd-l...@iem.at>; Georg Bosch <kr...@stillavailable.com> Sent: Monday, October 31, 2011 11:04 AM
Subject: Re: [PD] expr alternative
i just got a reply and they are reviewing my question, so hopefully we can find
out if they currently allow LGPL.
however, even if the do, i PERSONALLY still think a BSD [expr] would be much
i know there were a lot of heated comments in this thread defending GPL, but if
the author of the object would prefer to go with BSD, and if all that keeps him
from doing the work is a little time and motivation, well, i can't really give
him any time, but i can maybe help with motivation.
Am i on my own if i try to do that?
On Mon, Oct 31, 2011 at 11:58 PM, Hans-Christoph Steiner <ha...@at.or.at> wrote:
Another side of it is that the GPL and LGPL do not allow additional restrictions
to be placed on the code. The VLC and GNU Go complaints as I understood them
were specifically about the Apple App Store placing additional restrictions on
the code. So that would affect LGPL and GPL alike. An app that includes some
LGPL code might be a grey area since there is no possible expectation of
producing a binary exactly like the original, since not all the code's licenses
require that, so distributing the LGPL part separate might be enough.
With the GPL, the whole app needs to be GPL compatible, so therefore there is an
easy test: every user must be able to freely recreate the binary, and freely
install, run, and modify it. That's something that the Apple App Store
I don't think this will really be resolved until Apple drops those terms or the
FSF makes a statement on the LGPL in the Apple App Store.
On Oct 31, 2011, at 10:49 AM, i go bananas wrote:
i just called a couple of apple numbers. first one had me on hold for 10
minutes so i gave up, 2nd one was useless.
BUT third one was a rather helpful lady whose name i now have and she has issued
me a 'case number' so my question is now listed in their system at least, so
hopefully i can get the 'yay or nay' from apple on LGPL code in iOS
Also, i have already contacted a friend who works for a company making high
profile iOS applications, and from what he is saying LGPL is OK. it seems the main problem with plain GPL is that apple doesn't want to release
their own surrounding code, which the GPL would force them to do. As far as i can see, LGPL doesn't have this strict requirement. You just need
to make the LGPL part available to anyone who wants it.
Will keep hammering away here. LGPL sounds like it might be a better option,
but i still reckon if Mr Yadegari is in favour of BSD, then that would be the
best outcome. Personally i'd be happy to donate a couple of hundred dollars even to see a
unified license for PD, but as this thread has shown, it sounds like i may get
hippies camping on my lawn waving their GPL flags and trying to bum my goldfish.
Just casually browsing through a bunch of PD patches this afternoon though,
[expr] and especially [expr~] are undeniably useful and show up in so many
You can't steal a gift. Bird gave the world his music, and if you can hear it,
you can have it. - Dizzy Gillespie