Ok. I'll make a patch for it if no one else does ... maybe in a few days. On Oct 5, 2013, at 1:41 PM, i go bananas <[email protected]> wrote:
> just to clarify, > > Shahrokh Yadegari, IRCAM, and the JMax developers, ALL agreed with the switch > to LGPL license. > > so AFAIK, the 'GPL' claim in the source code is still there simply because > no-one has changed it. > > > > > On Sat, Oct 5, 2013 at 8:45 AM, Dan Wilcox <[email protected]> wrote: > Well, it seems like all the authors agree and there's already an LGPL > license. I only brought up all of this due to the inconsistency between whats > actually there in the source files. I'd love for that to just be changed and > we all move on. It's not like this is a huge patent / money maker thing. If > being anal and bringing this to light truly means I *can't* use it in the > long run, well than I should have done what most everyone else does in these > situations: use it and keep my mouth shut :P. > > We know what is allowed / not allowed by Apple, don't need a lawyer for that. > > On Oct 5, 2013, at 4:22 AM, [email protected] wrote: > >> On 10/04/2013 01:44 PM, Miller Puckette wrote: >>> One (not so minor) note on this... "expr" is copyright IRCAM (hahrokh >>> Yadegari >>> was working for IRCAM at the time) and is also included in Max, so it >>> might be sbject to agreements between IRCAM and Cycling '74. >>> >>> I was under the impression it was under GPL, not LGPL. I just looked and >>> saw that, indeed, the LICENSE.txt file says LGPL and the expr source code >>> print out "GPL" on startup. The reason I think it's actually GPL is that >>> that is how IRCAM released it -- as part of jMAX, years ago. The current >>> code is based on that original code. Although it was extensively reworked >>> by Shahrokh, I presume the GPL terms under which he was working required him >>> to release the result under GPL too. >>> >>> So for the moment at least, I'm afraid FUD rules. >> >> My vote would be to keep all the original GPL licenses in Pd vanilla's >> expr, and to remove the LGPL readme. GPL was the licensed under >> which expr was originally released, so we can reasonably assume all the >> copyright holders agreed to that license. >> >> If the consensus was that it should be changed in order to accomodate >> Pure Data builds on IOS, then everyone who wants to use expr on IOS >> should pool their resources and hire a lawyer to explain what is and >> isn't allowed under the LGPL and Apple's TOS. The lawyer should also >> find out if it was indeed possible to change the license to LGPL in light >> of what Miller brings up about the original licensing. >> >> That's two unknowns wrt LGPL expr, and they won't be solved by >> revising the source nor IANAL discussions. >> >> Best, >> Jonathan > > -------- > Dan Wilcox > @danomatika > danomatika.com > robotcowboy.com > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > [email protected] mailing list > UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> > http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list > > -------- Dan Wilcox @danomatika danomatika.com robotcowboy.com
_______________________________________________ [email protected] mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
