I forgot that ceammc has its own version of fluid~ and it is distributed via deken. Well, I see no dynamic lib for fluidsynth in the package, so I can only assume it loads it statically... not sure if the authors will pick this up here, but I guess I'll ask them directly...
Em qui., 7 de jan. de 2021 às 03:07, Alexandre Torres Porres < [email protected]> escreveu: > The license is being respected (I think?). I didn't touch it, see > https://github.com/porres/pd-fluidsynth/blob/main/LICENSE.txt and, well, > I do think I could make a variation of this in my ELSE library, but I'd > keep the license untouched anyway. Thus, the bump in the way is still > learning how to statically link a complex project like this... > > So, I started a new thread to announce the test builds for mac/windows, > but it all seems fine. Now, what about Linux? There's mo magical scripts > for linux, why? I guess Linux handles the dependencies nicely via apt-get > and stuff, but what about sharing this via deken? > > cheers > > Em qua., 6 de jan. de 2021 às 09:43, Christof Ressi < > [email protected]> escreveu: > >> > static linking has *legal* implications: >> > you cannot just distribute a binary that statically links a GPL-library >> under another license (eg the dwtfyw license). >> For the sake of clarity, the same is also true for dynamic linking! >> >> IOhannes knows this, of course, I just figured his comment could've >> accidentally left some people with the impression that it's ok to >> dynamically link a GPL library to a permissively (or even commerically) >> licensed project. >> >> Now, libfluidsynth is actually LGPL v2 licensed. The LGPL has an >> exception which allows to link a LGPL library to a permissively (or >> commercially) licensed project. Many people seem to think that LGPL only >> allows for dynamic linking, but it's also possible to link statically >> under certain (more strict) conditions: >> >> https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#LGPLStaticVsDynamic >> >> ***DISCLAIMER***: This is just my understanding of the situation. >> Anybody feel free to correct me on this! >> >> Christof >> >> On 06.01.2021 09:52, IOhannes m zmölnig wrote: >> > Am 6. Jänner 2021 03:39:00 MEZ schrieb Alexandre Torres Porres < >> [email protected]>: >> >> Personally, I strongly prefer static linking for plugins (like Pd >> >>> externals). >> >>> >> >> seems best for me too! >> >> >> > well, apart from bloat (speaking with my system packager hat on), >> static linking has *legal* implications: >> > you cannot just distribute a binary that statically links a GPL-library >> under another license (eg the dwtfyw license). >> > >> > are you prepared for doing your homework here? >> > >> > >> > >> > mfg.hft.fsl >> > IOhannes >> > >> > >> > _______________________________________________ >> > [email protected] mailing list >> > UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> >> https://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> [email protected] mailing list >> UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> >> https://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list >> >
_______________________________________________ [email protected] mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> https://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
