[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!
Ninja Jamm - a revolutionary new music remix app from Ninja Tune and Seeper, for iPhone and iPad

Gemnotes-0.2: Live music notation for Pure Data, now with dynamics!

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.)
>> 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