[PD] expr alternative

Olivier B lamouraupeuple at gmail.com
Fri Nov 4 09:29:59 CET 2011 

2011/11/4 i go bananas <hard.off at 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 ?



>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Fri, Nov 4, 2011 at 8:50 AM, Olivier B <lamouraupeuple at gmail.com>wrote:
>
>> 2011/11/2 Jonathan Wilkes <jancsika at yahoo.com>
>>
>>> >________________________________
>>> >From: Olivier B <lamouraupeuple at gmail.com>
>>> >To: i go bananas <hard.off at gmail.com>
>>> >Cc: PD-List <pd-list at 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.off at 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 <jancsika at 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.off at gmail.com>
>>> >>>>To: Hans-Christoph Steiner <hans at at.or.at>
>>> >>>>Cc: PD-List <pd-list at iem.at>; Georg Bosch <kram at 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 <
>>> hans at 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 at 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 at iem.at mailing list
>>> >>>>UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management ->
>>> http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>>
>>> >>
>>> >>_______________________________________________
>>> >>Pd-list at iem.at mailing list
>>> >>UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management ->
>>> http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >--
>>> >Envie de tisser ?
>>> >http://yamatierea.org/papatchs/
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >_______________________________________________
>>> >Pd-list at 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/
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.puredata.info/pipermail/pd-list/attachments/20111104/877d5129/attachment-0001.htm>

More information about the Pd-list mailing list