Wouldn't you need to get permission from Ircam, too?
They are listed as a copyrightholder, for example, in vexp.c.
There is also the following list of authors:
- Authors: Maurizio De Cecco, Francois Dechelle, Enzo Maggi, Norbert Schnell.
-Jonathan
From: i go bananas hard.off@gmail.com To: Hans-Christoph Steiner hans@at.or.at Cc: PD-List pd-list@iem.at; Georg Bosch kram@stillavailable.com Sent: Monday, October 31, 2011 11:04 AM Subject: Re: [PD] expr alternative
i just got a reply and they are reviewing my question, so hopefully we can find out if they currently allow LGPL.
however, even if the do, i PERSONALLY still think a BSD [expr] would be much better.
i know there were a lot of heated comments in this thread defending GPL, but if the author of the object would prefer to go with BSD, and if all that keeps him from doing the work is a little time and motivation, well, i can't really give him any time, but i can maybe help with motivation.
Am i on my own if i try to do that?
On Mon, Oct 31, 2011 at 11:58 PM, Hans-Christoph Steiner hans@at.or.at wrote:
Another side of it is that the GPL and LGPL do not allow additional restrictions to be placed on the code. The VLC and GNU Go complaints as I understood them were specifically about the Apple App Store placing additional restrictions on the code. So that would affect LGPL and GPL alike. An app that includes some LGPL code might be a grey area since there is no possible expectation of producing a binary exactly like the original, since not all the code's licenses require that, so distributing the LGPL part separate might be enough.
With the GPL, the whole app needs to be GPL compatible, so therefore there is an easy test: every user must be able to freely recreate the binary, and freely install, run, and modify it. That's something that the Apple App Store definitely restricts.
I don't think this will really be resolved until Apple drops those terms or the FSF makes a statement on the LGPL in the Apple App Store.
.hc
On Oct 31, 2011, at 10:49 AM, i go bananas wrote:
i just called a couple of apple numbers. first one had me on hold for 10 minutes so i gave up, 2nd one was useless.
BUT third one was a rather helpful lady whose name i now have and she has issued me a 'case number' so my question is now listed in their system at least, so hopefully i can get the 'yay or nay' from apple on LGPL code in iOS applications.
Also, i have already contacted a friend who works for a company making high profile iOS applications, and from what he is saying LGPL is OK. it seems the main problem with plain GPL is that apple doesn't want to release their own surrounding code, which the GPL would force them to do. As far as i can see, LGPL doesn't have this strict requirement. You just need to make the LGPL part available to anyone who wants it.
Will keep hammering away here. LGPL sounds like it might be a better option, but i still reckon if Mr Yadegari is in favour of BSD, then that would be the best outcome. Personally i'd be happy to donate a couple of hundred dollars even to see a unified license for PD, but as this thread has shown, it sounds like i may get hippies camping on my lawn waving their GPL flags and trying to bum my goldfish.
Just casually browsing through a bunch of PD patches this afternoon though, [expr] and especially [expr~] are undeniably useful and show up in so many patches.
Pd-list@iem.at mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
You can't steal a gift. Bird gave the world his music, and if you can hear it, you can have it. - Dizzy Gillespie
Pd-list@iem.at mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list