>________________________________ >From: Olivier B <lamouraupeu...@gmail.com> >To: i go bananas <hard....@gmail.com> >Cc: Jonathan Wilkes <jancs...@yahoo.com>; PD-List <pd-list@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 obligations." >> >> >>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 Application." >> >>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 situation. >> >>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 >>consensus. >> >>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 compliant > >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 <lamouraupeu...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>2011/11/2 Jonathan Wilkes <jancs...@yahoo.com> >>> >>>>________________________________ >>>>>From: Olivier B <lamouraupeu...@gmail.com> >>>>>To: i go bananas <hard....@gmail.com> >>>>>Cc: PD-List <pd-list@iem.at> >>>>>Sent: Wednesday, November 2, 2011 8:01 AM >>>> >>>>>Subject: Re: [PD] expr alternative >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>>>Hi list... >>>>> >>>>>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? >>>> >>> >>>Sorry list... >>> >>>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 ) ) >>> >>>Cheers... >>> >>>01ivier... >>> >>> >>>> >>>>-Jonathan >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>>>Cheers... >>>>> >>>>>01ivier >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>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 <jancs...@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. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>-Jonathan >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>________________________________ >>>>>>>>From: i go bananas <hard....@gmail.com> >>>>>>>>To: Hans-Christoph Steiner <h...@at.or.at> >>>>>>>>Cc: PD-List <pd-list@iem.at>; Georg Bosch <k...@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 better. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>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 >>>>>>>><h...@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 definitely restricts. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>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. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>.hc >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>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 applications. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> 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 patches. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>>>>>> Pd-list@iem.at mailing list >>>>>>>>>> UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> >>>>>>>>>> http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>You can't steal a gift. Bird gave the world his music, and if you can >>>>>>>>>hear it, you can have it. - Dizzy Gillespie >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>_______________________________________________ >>>>>>>>Pd-list@iem.at mailing list >>>>>>>>UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> >>>>>>>>http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>_______________________________________________ >>>>>>Pd-list@iem.at mailing list >>>>>>UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> >>>>>>http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>-- >>>>>Envie de tisser ? >>>>>http://yamatierea.org/papatchs/ >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>_______________________________________________ >>>>>Pd-list@iem.at mailing list >>>>>UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> >>>>>http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>> >>> >>> >>>-- >>>Envie de tisser ? >>>http://yamatierea.org/papatchs/ >>> >>> >> > > >-- >Envie de tisser ? >http://yamatierea.org/papatchs/ > > > > _______________________________________________ Pd-list@iem.at mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
