[PD] Legal restrictions for apps

[Tony Hillerson]

Ok, great. That's helpful everyone, thank you.

-- 
Tony Hillerson


On Wednesday, October 2, 2013 at 18:35 PM, Dan Wilcox wrote:

> My approach with PdParty so far is:
> 
> - GPL source code is incompatible with the Apple App Store due to the static linking requirement which means you cannot distribute GPL libs as dynamic libs which can be updated or replaced by the user
> 
> - GPL patches are fine, they are text files which are not compiled into your app binary so can be freely replaced, I expose all of the GPL patches I use to the user so they can modify or update them to satisfy the distribution requirement of the GPL
> 
> - I leave out [expr] & [expr~] for now. The license in the expr src folder is LGPL, but the license in the source headers is GPL and the following is printed to console when first loading the external: "expr, expr~, fexpr~ version 0.4 under GNU General Public License ". I will leave it out until those parts of the code are explicitly changed. If this has already happened, then we need to merge in those changes to libpd. So far, as Miller suggests, I've been replacing [expr] with regular math objects.
> 
> On Oct 3, 2013, at 4:12 AM, pd-list-request at iem.at (mailto:pd-list-request at iem.at) wrote:
> > From: Tony Hillerson <tony.hillerson at gmail.com (mailto:tony.hillerson at gmail.com)>
> > Subject: Re: [PD] Legal restrictions for apps
> > Date: October 3, 2013 3:17:37 AM GMT+08:00
> > To: Miller Puckette <msp at ucsd.edu (mailto:msp at ucsd.edu)>
> > Cc: pd-list at iem.at (mailto:pd-list at iem.at)
> > 
> > 
> > I agree that it seems like there's there's no prohibition on distributing LPGL objects, but it seems like unless I fork libpd and remove that extern I'm required to make my object code available as well. Is that other's understanding also?
> > 
> > -- 
> > Tony Hillerson
> > 
> > 
> > On Wednesday, October 2, 2013 at 13:04 PM, Miller Puckette wrote:
> > 
> > > Hi Tony -
> > > 
> > > I'm not sure, but I always thought you can distribute LGPL objects within
> > > commercial (closed-source) software. If I'm wrong about that, the next
> > > step would be to re-rwite the patch without using expr~ and not include
> > > expr~ in the product. (I keep it as an extern to make that easy to do.)
> > > 
> > > cheers
> > > Miller
> > > 
> > > On Wed, Oct 02, 2013 at 11:32:21AM -0600, Tony Hillerson wrote:
> > > > Hey guys,
> > > > 
> > > > I'm wondering about the restrictions for using Pure Data patches in Android and iOS apps with libpd. I have a rudimentary understanding that if I distribute software that's released under the GPL or LGPL I need to make available my source or at least the object files of my app.
> > > > 
> > > > As I understand it, from the vanilla distribution contains [expr~], which is LGPL. If I use libpd, I'm distributing it, and I need to make the source or the object files of my apps available. Is that correct? Are there any paid apps that use pd and distribute through Google Play or Appstore?
> > > > 
> > > > --
> > > > Tony Hillerson
> > > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > Pd-list at iem.at (mailto:Pd-list at iem.at) mailing list
> > > > UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
> > > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > 
> > 
> 
> 
> 
> --------
> Dan Wilcox
> @danomatika
> danomatika.com (http://danomatika.com)
> robotcowboy.com (http://robotcowboy.com)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.puredata.info/pipermail/pd-list/attachments/20131003/be9934cf/attachment.htm>