----- Original Message -----
From: Marvin Humphrey marvin@rectangular.com To: Simon Wise simonzwise@gmail.com Cc: pd-list@iem.at Sent: Wednesday, October 26, 2011 1:20 AM Subject: Re: [PD] expr alternative
On Wed, Oct 26, 2011 at 08:51:23AM +0800, Simon Wise wrote:
On 26/10/11 01:29, Hans-Christoph Steiner wrote:
The Apple App Store is incompatible with the GPL and LGPL, from what I understand. Getting Apple to make their App Store compatible with the
GPL and
LGPL is another much better solution since it will work for all GPL and
LGPL
software.
this is of course the best solution ...
---->8 snip license advocacy and geopolitical theory 8<----
I would like to register my disagreement. In my opinion, the solution which best serves the broad community of users -- including those users for whom expr's licensing is problematic -- is for Pd Vanilla to have uniform BSD licensing. It seems to me that an implementation of expr which is license-compatible with the rest of Vanilla is a perfectly reasonable and understandable feature request.
The practical rationale is obvious: if GPL (or potentially LGPL) is not an option for you, then expr is missing from your toolkit, and it would be nice to have it. I understand that there are several valuable contributors within the Pd community who believe that it is important to deny that feature request for moral reasons. There are also opposing moral reasons to grant it, but as before, I intend to keep my developer list posts on licensing limited to dry mechanics if possible; if you absolutely cannot live without a sprinkle of BSD license advocacy to complement the on-list deluge of copyleft license advocacy, please ask off-list.
As it is, I don't think the expr family objects are suitable for inclusion as internal objects because of what I mentioned about clashing with standard implied Pd floats (as well as the automatic stripping of unnecessary decimal points and zeroes). So even if one got the license changed, one would still have to figure out a way to make expr more "Pd-ish" without breaking backwards compatibility. (I'm not sure that's even possible.)
But here's a novel idea-- how about the guy who wants a 3-clause BSD-licensed expr for the expressed _sole_ purpose of using the object in proprietary software actually _pay_ money to a developer to code a similar BSD-licensed object?
-Jonathan
Best,
Marvin Humphrey
Pd-list@iem.at mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list