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

[Jonathan Wilkes]

>________________________________
> From: Scott R. Looney <scottrlooney at gmail.com>
>To: Simon Wise <simonzwise at gmail.com> 
>Cc: pd-list <pd-list at iem.at> 
>Sent: Friday, November 2, 2012 11:44 PM
>Subject: Re: [PD] rjdj is gone, robotcowboy is coming ...
> 
>
>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'd just like to point out here that the common denominator in these threads about expr license, GPL, etc., is the
iOS.

Do these issues crop up with Android?  If not, can we just say that running Pd on the extremely
restrictive, locked down devices made by Apple means that you should stick to 3-Clause BSD or
MIT licensed code?


> 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?

Cyclone has the 3-Clause BSD license which is the same as Pd Vanilla.

-Jonathan


>
>
>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
>>
>
>_______________________________________________
>Pd-list at iem.at mailing list
>UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
>
>
>