[PD] Legal restrictions for apps
danomatika at gmail.com
Sat Oct 5 01:45:44 CEST 2013
Well, it seems like all the authors agree and there's already an LGPL license. I only brought up all of this due to the inconsistency between whats actually there in the source files. I'd love for that to just be changed and we all move on. It's not like this is a huge patent / money maker thing. If being anal and bringing this to light truly means I *can't* use it in the long run, well than I should have done what most everyone else does in these situations: use it and keep my mouth shut :P.
We know what is allowed / not allowed by Apple, don't need a lawyer for that.
On Oct 5, 2013, at 4:22 AM, pd-list-request at iem.at wrote:
> On 10/04/2013 01:44 PM, Miller Puckette wrote:
>> One (not so minor) note on this... "expr" is copyright IRCAM (hahrokh Yadegari
>> was working for IRCAM at the time) and is also included in Max, so it
>> might be sbject to agreements between IRCAM and Cycling '74.
>> I was under the impression it was under GPL, not LGPL. I just looked and
>> saw that, indeed, the LICENSE.txt file says LGPL and the expr source code
>> print out "GPL" on startup. The reason I think it's actually GPL is that
>> that is how IRCAM released it -- as part of jMAX, years ago. The current
>> code is based on that original code. Although it was extensively reworked
>> by Shahrokh, I presume the GPL terms under which he was working required him
>> to release the result under GPL too.
>> So for the moment at least, I'm afraid FUD rules.
> My vote would be to keep all the original GPL licenses in Pd vanilla's
> expr, and to remove the LGPL readme. GPL was the licensed under
> which expr was originally released, so we can reasonably assume all the
> copyright holders agreed to that license.
> If the consensus was that it should be changed in order to accomodate
> Pure Data builds on IOS, then everyone who wants to use expr on IOS
> should pool their resources and hire a lawyer to explain what is and
> isn't allowed under the LGPL and Apple's TOS. The lawyer should also
> find out if it was indeed possible to change the license to LGPL in light
> of what Miller brings up about the original licensing.
> That's two unknowns wrt LGPL expr, and they won't be solved by
> revising the source nor IANAL discussions.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Pd-list