[PD] Legal restrictions for apps

[Ed Kelly via Pd-list]

Ah well. I'll just have to write a new one based on pd source code and first-principles!
That's what happens...
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 Monday, 9 June 2014, 23:00, Ed Kelly <morph_2016 at yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
 

>
>
>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/20140612/37859d31/attachment.html>