The GPL and LGPL prohibit covered software and all derivative work from having its source code hidden from the public. The GPL takes the strong stance, saying that all software that uses the GPL software must itself be released under the terms of the GPL. This is known as a "reciprocal", "share-alike", or "viral" license, and legally prohibits closed source software developers from using GPLed code. In contrast, LGPL provides an exception to the usage and distribution of the software, allowing for non-free products to include the LGPLed software.
If you’re developing an iPhone application that you intend to submit to Apple’s App Store and you want to make use of a third-party’s software library that happens to be licensed under the GNU Lesser General Public License (LGPL), you have a couple of choices according to the license requirements:• You can open-source your app. Specifically, you provide to your users the source code of your entire application under the LGPL or GPL. That means for example all the .h and .m files.• You can keep your app closed-source, but you provide to your users all the object code of your application necessary to re-link your application. That means for example all the .o and .a files. Most people forget that this option is in fact available to iPhone app developers.
Of course, if you modify the library itself, you have to provide these code changes in source form either way.
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?
Cheers,
EdNinja 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@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@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@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@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,about
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 thinkthis. 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
_______________________________________________
Pd-list@iem.at mailing list
UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list