> The whole license thing was kind of a pain to figure out as nobody seemed to
> know the technicalities at the time.
Did you contact one of the various organizations that handle licensing issues
for free software communities?
-Jonathan
On Thursday, November 12, 2015 8:10 PM, Dan Wilcox <danomat...@gmail.com>
wrote:
Seriously though, I *think* I was the one who suggested LGPL when we did this
the first time, so it’s on me. The whole license thing was kind of a pain to
figure out as nobody seemed to know the technicalities at the time.
I personally favor GPL licenses, but they obviously don’t work with Apple’s
licensing. At the time, LGPL ver 2 *kind of* could slide through *if* you
distributed the source code itself so people could build new versions of the
app (which is what I planned to do). LGPL 3 closed that loophole and expr was
relicensed as LGPL 3 so here we are. I didn’t want to *assume* the original
authors wanted to move away form the GPL that much, so LGPL seemed like a
compromise. (Obviously, Apple’s policies are the real issue here.)
Anyway, if it’s the same BSD license as pd itself, we should be good … but
don;t quote me on that this time. :P
--------
Dan Wilcox
@danomatika
danomatika.com
robotcowboy.com
On Nov 12, 2015, at 5:54 PM, Dan Wilcox <danomat...@gmail.com> wrote:
Oh, I was just waiting for you to tell us what to do. :D
--------
Dan Wilcox
@danomatika
danomatika.com
robotcowboy.com
On Nov 12, 2015, at 5:49 PM, pd-list-requ...@lists.iem.at wrote:
I suggest this because we've devoted our non-expert energy to licensing
issues for expr once already, and it resulted in a license choice that wasn't
even
compatible with the proposed use-case.
_______________________________________________
Pd-list@lists.iem.at mailing list
UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management ->
http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
