[PD] rjdj is gone, robotcowboy is coming ...

[Scott R. Looney]

thanks for that excellent information Simon! very descriptive.

i am partially wondering about this myself because there are a few
developers out there using PD/libpd as a sound engine for games, and one
obstacle encountered is that it is not possible to use pd-extended under
libpd because of the issues copyleft/GPL presents when creating iOS apps. i
am personally in favor of open source/copyleft myself, but it is a
significant issue. i for one would love to see the cyclone library (both
audio and data objects) ported under a different license - is this just a
matter of recompiling from source independently, or should i get permission
from the maintainer (i think it's HC, right?) to do so?

scott

BTW i think Robotcowboy looks great, although i was also curious where
Chris M's PdParty (iOS version of DroidParty) alpha port went.


On Fri, Nov 2, 2012 at 7:05 PM, Simon Wise <simonzwise at gmail.com> wrote:

> On 02/11/12 11:04, Scott R. Looney wrote:
>
>> i had heard that to be totally safe you needed to use MIT or BSD licensing
>> on the external. has anyone found that to be generally true?
>>
>
> To sell an app on the App Store you give apple a license to distribute it
> and they agree to give you 70% (or so) of what they sell each DRM locked
> copy for, the business model here is selling the right to use individual
> copies of binaries of Apps. The end user license that the App Store offers
> is the right to use a copy the App in a restricted way in exchange for a
> one-off payment.
>
> Any code that is Public Domain, or at least licensed so that there is no
> restriction on redistribution of the binaries is compatible with that
> model. Any code that requires the distributor to provide source code is
> not, Apple does not like that and will not do so.
>
> So if by 'safe' you mean compliant with the needs of Apples business model
> then giving them a license for code which is Pubic Domain is 'safe', as is
> giving them a license any code that can be redistributed as closed source
> binaries.
>
> Any copyleft license that restricts use of the code to open source
> projects only by requiring the distributor to provide the source code is
> 'unsafe'. It is unacceptable to Apple and will not fit in their App Store.
>
> I believe most GPL code is intentionally copyleft, the (original)
> developers actively did not want to give it away for use in closed source
> projects.
>
> Many are willing to sell their code to closed source projects with a
> different license, but of course each contributor must agree to the license
> given to Apple and many would want to be given a reasonable share of that
> 70% in exchange for the use of that code. If that 70% is actually $0 then
> they must be willing to allow closed source, DRM locked redistribution of
> their code without payment. That may well conflict with their own business
> model, they may consider this 'unsafe'.
>
>
> Simon
>
>
> ______________________________**_________________
> Pd-list at iem.at mailing list
> UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> http://lists.puredata.info/**
> listinfo/pd-list <http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.puredata.info/pipermail/pd-list/attachments/20121102/c046c80b/attachment.htm>