Ah well. I'll just have to write a new one based on pd source code and
first-principles!
That's what happens...
Ed
Ninja Jamm - a revolutionary new music remix app from Ninja Tune and Seeper,
for iPhone and iPad
http://www.ninjajamm.com/
Gemnotes-0.2: Live music notation for Pure Data, now with dynamics!
http://sharktracks.co.uk/
On Monday, 9 June 2014, 23:00, Ed Kelly morph_2...@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
OK, so I realise I've made a fundamental mistake here.
For the latest update of the Pd patch I make for Ninja Tune, I used iem16.
Looking at it now I realise that it has a GPL, not an LGPL license. So, I
can't use it right? They won't release the source code for the entire app!
Oh shit. This is really serious!
Best,
Ed
Ninja Jamm - a revolutionary new music remix app from Ninja Tune and Seeper,
for iPhone and iPad
http://www.ninjajamm.com/
Gemnotes-0.2: Live music notation for Pure Data, now with dynamics!
http://sharktracks.co.uk/
On Thursday, 6 February 2014, 8:11, Jonathan Wilkes jancs...@yahoo.com wrote:
On 02/05/2014 08:56 PM, Simon Wise wrote:
On 06/02/14 00:36, Dan Wilcox wrote:
Short answer: yes, it's
sufficient to provide the object files and
static
libs
As far as my understanding of GPL LGPL goes, you do not need to
publish
your app sources when using LGPL libraries as the Lesser part of
the LGPL
allows for distribution and is not viral.
yes, though 'viral' is a misleading term ... the GPL does not,
cannot, change any license for any other code, it is not infectious.
The GPL is certainly more restrictive (regarding re-distribution, not
use, of the code covered) than for example the BSD or LGPL. It
restricts the right to distribute/propagate as part of a larger work
to works where the whole of the source code of that work is made
available for reuse, modification and re-distribution either under the
GPL or in any less restrictive way.
In the second case the GPLed code would no longer be licensed for
distribution (and would have to be replaced or dropped or a different
license negotiated with its copyright owners) if the work as a whole
was modified and distributed with a more restrictive license. Whether
this is useful or not has been very widely debated.
There are two debates.
One is between devs who license their code with the GPL and devs who
license their code with 3-clause BSD. Both share what they make with
the
world. Both keep publicly auditable databases of the changes to the
software. Both encourage smart, safe ways to design and maintain
software and operating systems.
BSD devs notice that when they share with GPL devs, the GPL devs say,
Thanks. But when the BSD devs try to use what the GPL devs write they
have to fuss with the license. This is because the GPL essentially puts
the golden rule into the license, whereas the BSD devs have a minimal
license (probably as minimal as a license can be) and just follow the
golden rule as human beings.
There are good reasons for both camps to do what they do, but it ends up
requiring the BSD folks to care more about licenses than they'd like--
their license is only 3 clauses,
after all! So the BSD camp complains
that when the GPL devs (like Linux Kernel devs) improve on code that was
originally BSD, it comes back to the BSD folks infected with the GPL
license which requires them to then care about licenses. This is where
the viral taunt comes from-- a genuine argument between two camps,
both sharing what they make with everyone else to encourage a free and
safe software ecosystem.
Another debate is between any company that produces proprietary software
and a straw man in a corn field. Here viral is irrelevant because the
company isn't giving improvements back to the community. Unfortunately
this is probably what first pops to mind when people hear this
argument-- that, somehow, the GPL can
infect the business of selling a
product and make it impossible for a company to make money.
But for better or for worse, we don't even need to consider minimal
moral principles. It's demonstrably dangerous to rely on software that
doesn't have a pubic codebase and revision history. (Unfortunately I
think it's for the better since most devs seem allergic to stating
minimal moral principles.)
-Jonathan
The motivation for the GPL is stated in the license and the LGPL was
written to cover some cases where the authors considered a less
restrictive license useful.
Simon
___
pd-l...@iem.at mailing list
UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -
http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
___
pd-l...@iem.at mailing list
UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -
http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
___
Pd-list@lists.iem.at mailing list
UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -
