[PD] Legal restrictions for apps

[Simon Wise]

On 05/02/14 21:55, Ed Kelly wrote:
> Hi Dan, Miller et al.
>
> I'm still somewhat confused about the LGPL issues with regarding apps.
>
> Say I make an app that uses LibPd, and include an object or library that is
> licensed with an LGPL license. Would I have to include all source code for
> the app itself, or would it be sufficient to provide object files and source
> code for just the LGPL library I have used?

The whole point of LGPL is to allow using a library with incompatibly licensed 
apps, while still keeping copyleft licensing for the library itself.

see the licences for details ...

http://www.gnu.org/licenses/lgpl.html
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/lgpl-2.1.html

you do not need to provide sources for the apps using the library (as you do 
when distributing an application linked with GPLed libraries). But you do need 
to ensure users are free to modify the LGPL library and use their own version 
with the app.

Much of the discussion below was prompted by questions about using libraries 
with iOS and in particular compatibility with Apples stores. Apple hasn't 
allowed either GPL or LGPL software on their app stores, libPd avoided expr etc 
to conform with Apple's policies and hence be allowed on Apples app stores. 
Changing to LGPL won't change that, Apple does not like copyleft.


Simon

>
> Ninja Jamm - a revolutionary new music remix app from Ninja Tune and Seeper, for iPhone and iPad
> http://www.ninjajamm.com/
>
>
> Gemnotes-0.2: Live music notation for Pure Data, now with dynamics!
> http://sharktracks.co.uk/
>
>
>
> On Sunday, 26 January 2014, 19:29, Dan Wilcox<danomatika at gmail.com>  wrote:
>
> Howdy Miller,
>>
>>
>> Sorry to bring this up again. The license in the expr source code headers has been updated to LGPL, but I just noticed the post in vexp_if.c line 386 still reads:
>>
>>
>> "expr, expr~, fexpr~ version %s under GNU General Public License  ".
>>
>> On Oct 5, 2013, at 8:53 PM, Dan Wilcox<danomatika at gmail.com>  wrote:
>>
>> Awesome, thank you. I'm glad we could figure it out. I remember checking a few times and we discussed this in libpd. I kept getting confused by the different licenses.
>>
>>
>> On Oct 6, 2013, at 3:55 AM, Miller Puckette<msp at ucsd.edu>  wrote:
>>
>> OK... done and pushed to git repo.
>>>
>>> cheers
>>> M
>>>
>>> On Sat, Oct 05, 2013 at 12:18:23PM -0700, Miller Puckette wrote:
>>>
>>> Hmm... Looking back in the git repo i saw:
>>>>
>>>> commit 42f3e5f8dbc60ad644e9f8a1c5b61d1847e19470
>>>> Author: Miller Puckette<msp at ucsd.edu>
>>>> Date:   Thu Nov 3 11:40:35 2011 -0700
>>>>
>>>>     change expr~ source to LGPL license (with IRCAM"s permission :)
>>>>
>>>> I had quite forgotten about this (and still can't remember this ever having happened)
>>>> but here's the e-mail I got from Shahrokh:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Tue, Oct 25, 2011 at 02:50:53AM -0700, Shahrokh Yadegari wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Dear Max and Miller,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I got news from IRCAM that they are willing to release expr code on LGPL.
>>>>>> Will that solve the current licensing problems?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Max, could you communicate to the list and let me know what they think
>>>>>> about
>>>>>
>>>>> this. I hope this helps.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> thanks,
>>>>>> Shahrokh
>>>>>>
>>>> So I think we're in the clear (although I hope Shahrokh kept the mail from
>>>> IRCAM authorizing this!)
>>>>
>>>> I'll go on and change the source over here so that it appears in the git repo.
>>>> (This will take some time as I first want to merge my 0.45 fixes into 'master'.)
>>>>
>>>> cheers
>>>> Miller
>>>>
>>>>
>>
>> --------
>> Dan Wilcox
>> @danomatika
>> danomatika.com
>> robotcowboy.com
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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