[PD] expr alternative

Fri Nov 4 21:20:20 CET 2011

I'll pitch EU 50. (while its still worth anything)

And politely encourage RjDj to dig in too.

I've made my feelings clear enough about Apple.

On Fri, 4 Nov 2011 09:29:59 +0100
Olivier B <lamouraupeuple at gmail.com> wrote:

> 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/

-- 
Andy Farnell <padawan12 at obiwannabe.co.uk>