[PD] Legal restrictions for apps
Ed Kelly via Pd-list
pd-list at lists.iem.at
Tue Jun 10 00:00:31 CEST 2014
OK, so I realise I've made a fundamental mistake here.
For the latest update of the Pd patch I make for Ninja Tune, I used iem16. Looking at it now I realise that it has a GPL, not an LGPL license. So, I can't use it right? They won't release the source code for the entire app!
Oh shit. This is really serious!
Best,
Ed
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 Thursday, 6 February 2014, 8:11, Jonathan Wilkes <jancsika at yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>On 02/05/2014 08:56 PM, Simon Wise wrote:
>> On 06/02/14 00:36, Dan Wilcox wrote:
>>> Short answer: yes, it's sufficient to provide the object files and
>>> static
>>> libs
>>>
>>> As far as my understanding of GPL& LGPL goes, you do not need to
>>> publish
>>> your app sources when using LGPL libraries as the "Lesser" part of
>>> the LGPL
>>> allows for distribution and is not viral.
>>
>> yes, though 'viral' is a misleading term ... the GPL does not,
>> cannot, change any license for any other code, it is not infectious.
>>
>> The GPL is certainly more restrictive (regarding re-distribution, not
>> use, of the code covered) than for example the BSD or LGPL. It
>> restricts the right to distribute/propagate as part of a larger work
>> to works where the whole of the source code of that work is made
>> available for reuse, modification and re-distribution either under the
>> GPL or in any less restrictive way.
>>
>> In the second case the GPLed code would no longer be licensed for
>> distribution (and would have to be replaced or dropped or a different
>> license negotiated with its copyright owners) if the work as a whole
>> was modified and distributed with a more restrictive license. Whether
>> this is useful or not has been very widely debated.
>
>There are two debates.
>
>One is between devs who license their code with the GPL and devs who
>license their code with 3-clause BSD. Both share what they make with
>the world. Both keep publicly auditable databases of the changes to the
>software. Both encourage smart, safe ways to design and maintain
>software and operating systems.
>
>BSD devs notice that when they share with GPL devs, the GPL devs say,
>"Thanks." But when the BSD devs try to use what the GPL devs write they
>have to fuss with the license. This is because the GPL essentially puts
>the golden rule into the license, whereas the BSD devs have a minimal
>license (probably as minimal as a license can be) and just follow the
>golden rule as human beings.
>
>There are good reasons for both camps to do what they do, but it ends up
>requiring the BSD folks to care more about licenses than they'd like--
>their license is only 3 clauses, after all! So the BSD camp complains
>that when the GPL devs (like Linux Kernel devs) improve on code that was
>originally BSD, it comes back to the BSD folks "infected" with the GPL
>license which requires them to then care about licenses. This is where
>the "viral" taunt comes from-- a genuine argument between two camps,
>both sharing what they make with everyone else to encourage a free and
>safe software ecosystem.
>
>Another debate is between any company that produces proprietary software
>and a straw man in a corn field. Here "viral" is irrelevant because the
>company isn't giving improvements back to the community. Unfortunately
>this is probably what first pops to mind when people hear this
>argument-- that, somehow, the GPL can "infect" the business of selling a
>product and make it impossible for a company to make money.
>
>But for better or for worse, we don't even need to consider minimal
>moral principles. It's demonstrably dangerous to rely on software that
>doesn't have a pubic codebase and revision history. (Unfortunately I
>think it's for the better since most devs seem allergic to stating
>minimal moral principles.)
>
>-Jonathan
>
>> The motivation for the GPL is stated in the license and the LGPL was
>> written to cover some cases where the authors considered a less
>> restrictive license useful.
>>
>>
>> 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
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.puredata.info/pipermail/pd-list/attachments/20140609/8ee03998/attachment-0001.html>
More information about the Pd-list
mailing list