look, i agree with all this to a point,

BUT, i do think that [expr] is a special case. 

i would never, for example, suggest writing to James McCartney to ask him about a license change for supercollider so you could make an iphone app with it.  That program is obviously GNU and that's how it's intended to be.

However, one of the real special gems for me in my journey through the world of pd, was discovering that not only was it a fantastic way to program, but also, that Miller had issued pd through a license that i had never even heard of before, and it was the best sort of license i could imagine.  It was a dream come true, when i got a job to do audio development and i could just do it all in pd because we could just embed the entire pd program inside our app.  (by the way, i'm probably already breaking about a million things i signed off not to talk about when i started that job.  please don't tell anyone!!)


so, of course, the only hitch was that i couldn't use [expr]. I did find other ways to do everything i wanted to use [expr] for.  but, it just did seem strange that even though i was limiting myself to only vanilla pd at that point, i also had to go that one step further and exclude [expr] from my efforts.


for the record, i am not wanting to submit anything as an iphone app or anything like that right now.  i couldn't even care too much about apple, as i had one really disappointing laptop from them that crashed and burnt way sooner than i expected and left me a couple of thousand dollars out of pocket.  I think the days of apple standing for quality product are well and truly over. i'll certainly never buy a new product from them again. 

but, i do think there's good reason to question the duality of vanilla pd's license, and the reason why i brought it up was the recent thread about chip/micro patches.  almost everyone of them used [expr] .  and i was thinking, wouldn't that be fun, just to have a little application that does that.  And i even went as far as thinking, "geez, i'd learn a bit more C++ programming to make a little app like that i could use on my ipod and mess around with compressed code examples like that". 

but of course, without [expr] it would be pretty shit, to excuse my australian.

anyway...was gonna type more.  but feel more like cranking up some UR records, so that's my essay. 




On Tue, Oct 25, 2011 at 6:17 PM, Andy Farnell <padawan12@obiwannabe.co.uk> wrote:

I'm glad you caught my drift Lorenzo.

It was never Matt's asking that bothered me, nor the
letter nor the spirit of the authors' licences'.

But it was the reasons for him feeling the need to ask in the
first place.

The mechanism by which a simple manufacturer of hardware gets
to set themselves up as arbiters of taste, decency, political
correctness, code quality, economic models, acceptable use...

... is baffling and disturbing.


On Tue, 25 Oct 2011 09:36:20 +0200
Lorenzo Sutton <lsutton@libero.it> wrote:

> I think it's in a way good that people realise some of the close-minded
> (at the most) views and policies of Apple. And their consequences.
> Especially in the 'creative/artistic' landscape which the company


--
Andy Farnell <padawan12@obiwannabe.co.uk>

_______________________________________________
Pd-list@iem.at mailing list
UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list