Well, it seems like all the authors agree and there's already an LGPL license. I only brought up all of this due to the inconsistency between whats actually there in the source files. I'd love for that to just be changed and we all move on. It's not like this is a huge patent / money maker thing. If being anal and bringing this to light truly means I *can't* use it in the long run, well than I should have done what most everyone else does in these situations: use it and keep my mouth shut :P.
We know what is allowed / not allowed by Apple, don't need a lawyer for that.
On Oct 5, 2013, at 4:22 AM, pd-list-request@iem.at wrote:
On 10/04/2013 01:44 PM, Miller Puckette wrote:
One (not so minor) note on this... "expr" is copyright IRCAM (hahrokh Yadegari was working for IRCAM at the time) and is also included in Max, so it might be sbject to agreements between IRCAM and Cycling '74.
I was under the impression it was under GPL, not LGPL. I just looked and saw that, indeed, the LICENSE.txt file says LGPL and the expr source code print out "GPL" on startup. The reason I think it's actually GPL is that that is how IRCAM released it -- as part of jMAX, years ago. The current code is based on that original code. Although it was extensively reworked by Shahrokh, I presume the GPL terms under which he was working required him to release the result under GPL too.
So for the moment at least, I'm afraid FUD rules.
My vote would be to keep all the original GPL licenses in Pd vanilla's expr, and to remove the LGPL readme. GPL was the licensed under which expr was originally released, so we can reasonably assume all the copyright holders agreed to that license.
If the consensus was that it should be changed in order to accomodate Pure Data builds on IOS, then everyone who wants to use expr on IOS should pool their resources and hire a lawyer to explain what is and isn't allowed under the LGPL and Apple's TOS. The lawyer should also find out if it was indeed possible to change the license to LGPL in light of what Miller brings up about the original licensing.
That's two unknowns wrt LGPL expr, and they won't be solved by revising the source nor IANAL discussions.
Best, Jonathan
Dan Wilcox @danomatika danomatika.com robotcowboy.com
just to clarify,
Shahrokh Yadegari, IRCAM, and the JMax developers, ALL agreed with the switch to LGPL license.
so AFAIK, the 'GPL' claim in the source code is still there simply because no-one has changed it.
On Sat, Oct 5, 2013 at 8:45 AM, Dan Wilcox danomatika@gmail.com wrote:
Well, it seems like all the authors agree and there's already an LGPL license. I only brought up all of this due to the inconsistency between whats actually there in the source files. I'd love for that to just be changed and we all move on. It's not like this is a huge patent / money maker thing. If being anal and bringing this to light truly means I *can't* use it in the long run, well than I should have done what most everyone else does in these situations: use it and keep my mouth shut :P.
We know what is allowed / not allowed by Apple, don't need a lawyer for that.
On Oct 5, 2013, at 4:22 AM, pd-list-request@iem.at wrote:
On 10/04/2013 01:44 PM, Miller Puckette wrote:
One (not so minor) note on this... "expr" is copyright IRCAM (hahrokh Yadegari was working for IRCAM at the time) and is also included in Max, so it might be sbject to agreements between IRCAM and Cycling '74.
I was under the impression it was under GPL, not LGPL. I just looked and saw that, indeed, the LICENSE.txt file says LGPL and the expr source code print out "GPL" on startup. The reason I think it's actually GPL is that that is how IRCAM released it -- as part of jMAX, years ago. The current code is based on that original code. Although it was extensively reworked by Shahrokh, I presume the GPL terms under which he was working required him to release the result under GPL too.
So for the moment at least, I'm afraid FUD rules.
My vote would be to keep all the original GPL licenses in Pd vanilla's expr, and to remove the LGPL readme. GPL was the licensed under which expr was originally released, so we can reasonably assume all the copyright holders agreed to that license.
If the consensus was that it should be changed in order to accomodate Pure Data builds on IOS, then everyone who wants to use expr on IOS should pool their resources and hire a lawyer to explain what is and isn't allowed under the LGPL and Apple's TOS. The lawyer should also find out if it was indeed possible to change the license to LGPL in light of what Miller brings up about the original licensing.
That's two unknowns wrt LGPL expr, and they won't be solved by revising the source nor IANAL discussions.
Best, Jonathan
Dan Wilcox @danomatika danomatika.com robotcowboy.com
Pd-list@iem.at mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
Ok. I'll make a patch for it if no one else does ... maybe in a few days.
On Oct 5, 2013, at 1:41 PM, i go bananas hard.off@gmail.com wrote:
just to clarify,
Shahrokh Yadegari, IRCAM, and the JMax developers, ALL agreed with the switch to LGPL license.
so AFAIK, the 'GPL' claim in the source code is still there simply because no-one has changed it.
On Sat, Oct 5, 2013 at 8:45 AM, Dan Wilcox danomatika@gmail.com wrote: Well, it seems like all the authors agree and there's already an LGPL license. I only brought up all of this due to the inconsistency between whats actually there in the source files. I'd love for that to just be changed and we all move on. It's not like this is a huge patent / money maker thing. If being anal and bringing this to light truly means I *can't* use it in the long run, well than I should have done what most everyone else does in these situations: use it and keep my mouth shut :P.
We know what is allowed / not allowed by Apple, don't need a lawyer for that.
On Oct 5, 2013, at 4:22 AM, pd-list-request@iem.at wrote:
On 10/04/2013 01:44 PM, Miller Puckette wrote:
One (not so minor) note on this... "expr" is copyright IRCAM (hahrokh Yadegari was working for IRCAM at the time) and is also included in Max, so it might be sbject to agreements between IRCAM and Cycling '74.
I was under the impression it was under GPL, not LGPL. I just looked and saw that, indeed, the LICENSE.txt file says LGPL and the expr source code print out "GPL" on startup. The reason I think it's actually GPL is that that is how IRCAM released it -- as part of jMAX, years ago. The current code is based on that original code. Although it was extensively reworked by Shahrokh, I presume the GPL terms under which he was working required him to release the result under GPL too.
So for the moment at least, I'm afraid FUD rules.
My vote would be to keep all the original GPL licenses in Pd vanilla's expr, and to remove the LGPL readme. GPL was the licensed under which expr was originally released, so we can reasonably assume all the copyright holders agreed to that license.
If the consensus was that it should be changed in order to accomodate Pure Data builds on IOS, then everyone who wants to use expr on IOS should pool their resources and hire a lawyer to explain what is and isn't allowed under the LGPL and Apple's TOS. The lawyer should also find out if it was indeed possible to change the license to LGPL in light of what Miller brings up about the original licensing.
That's two unknowns wrt LGPL expr, and they won't be solved by revising the source nor IANAL discussions.
Best, Jonathan
Dan Wilcox @danomatika danomatika.com robotcowboy.com
Pd-list@iem.at mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
Dan Wilcox @danomatika danomatika.com robotcowboy.com
thing is, we STILL don't know for sure if apple will accept LGPL. they have not said yes or no on that issue.
If someone else wants to try contacting them, maybe something has changed since last year...?
It's quite clear as I read a while ago: http://multinc.com/2009/08/24/compatibility-between-the-iphone-app-store-and...
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.
Since I've alreayd open sourced my app, I have no issues. It's only an issue if you're using libpd in a closed source app. It would be nice to moe to BSD, but at least I'd be able to use it ...
On Oct 5, 2013, at 1:45 PM, i go bananas hard.off@gmail.com wrote:
thing is, we STILL don't know for sure if apple will accept LGPL. they have not said yes or no on that issue.
If someone else wants to try contacting them, maybe something has changed since last year...?
Dan Wilcox @danomatika danomatika.com robotcowboy.com
please do! I would gladly test it out with some of my apps It would remove a bunch of this While we are on the subject does anyone on here have Supercollider working on IOS? I have a version working but the whole fear of selling it issue unfortunately for me has IMHO limited that lists willingness to help me get a working version on my ipad
i know that is OT but it's related in my opinion. I want Pure Data Supercollider and csound to work on my IOS devices to to "make a million dollars in the app store" but to make art
pp ________________________________ From: pd-list-bounces@iem.at [pd-list-bounces@iem.at] on behalf of Dan Wilcox [danomatika@gmail.com] Sent: Saturday, October 05, 2013 1:42 AM To: i go bananas Cc: pd-list@iem.at List Subject: Re: [PD] Legal restrictions for apps
Ok. I'll make a patch for it if no one else does ... maybe in a few days.
On Oct 5, 2013, at 1:41 PM, i go bananas <hard.off@gmail.commailto:hard.off@gmail.com> wrote:
just to clarify,
Shahrokh Yadegari, IRCAM, and the JMax developers, ALL agreed with the switch to LGPL license.
so AFAIK, the 'GPL' claim in the source code is still there simply because no-one has changed it.
On Sat, Oct 5, 2013 at 8:45 AM, Dan Wilcox <danomatika@gmail.commailto:danomatika@gmail.com> wrote: Well, it seems like all the authors agree and there's already an LGPL license. I only brought up all of this due to the inconsistency between whats actually there in the source files. I'd love for that to just be changed and we all move on. It's not like this is a huge patent / money maker thing. If being anal and bringing this to light truly means I *can't* use it in the long run, well than I should have done what most everyone else does in these situations: use it and keep my mouth shut :P.
We know what is allowed / not allowed by Apple, don't need a lawyer for that.
On Oct 5, 2013, at 4:22 AM, pd-list-request@iem.atmailto:pd-list-request@iem.at wrote:
On 10/04/2013 01:44 PM, Miller Puckette wrote: One (not so minor) note on this... "expr" is copyright IRCAM (hahrokh Yadegari was working for IRCAM at the time) and is also included in Max, so it might be sbject to agreements between IRCAM and Cycling '74.
I was under the impression it was under GPL, not LGPL. I just looked and saw that, indeed, the LICENSE.txt file says LGPL and the expr source code print out "GPL" on startup. The reason I think it's actually GPL is that that is how IRCAM released it -- as part of jMAX, years ago. The current code is based on that original code. Although it was extensively reworked by Shahrokh, I presume the GPL terms under which he was working required him to release the result under GPL too.
So for the moment at least, I'm afraid FUD rules.
My vote would be to keep all the original GPL licenses in Pd vanilla's expr, and to remove the LGPL readme. GPL was the licensed under which expr was originally released, so we can reasonably assume all the copyright holders agreed to that license.
If the consensus was that it should be changed in order to accomodate Pure Data builds on IOS, then everyone who wants to use expr on IOS should pool their resources and hire a lawyer to explain what is and isn't allowed under the LGPL and Apple's TOS. The lawyer should also find out if it was indeed possible to change the license to LGPL in light of what Miller brings up about the original licensing.
That's two unknowns wrt LGPL expr, and they won't be solved by revising the source nor IANAL discussions.
Best, Jonathan
Dan Wilcox @danomatika danomatika.comhttp://danomatika.com/ robotcowboy.comhttp://robotcowboy.com/
Pd-list@iem.atmailto:Pd-list@iem.at mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
Dan Wilcox @danomatika danomatika.comhttp://danomatika.com robotcowboy.comhttp://robotcowboy.com
typo
I want Pure Data Supercollider and csound to work on my IOS devices not to "make a million dollars in the app store" but to make art
pp
From: pd-list-bounces@iem.at [pd-list-bounces@iem.at] on behalf of Dan Wilcox [danomatika@gmail.com] Sent: Saturday, October 05, 2013 1:42 AM To: i go bananas Cc: pd-list@iem.at List Subject: Re: [PD] Legal restrictions for apps
Ok. I'll make a patch for it if no one else does ... maybe in a few days.
On Oct 5, 2013, at 1:41 PM, i go bananas <hard.off@gmail.commailto:hard.off@gmail.com> wrote:
just to clarify,
Shahrokh Yadegari, IRCAM, and the JMax developers, ALL agreed with the switch to LGPL license.
so AFAIK, the 'GPL' claim in the source code is still there simply because no-one has changed it.
On Sat, Oct 5, 2013 at 8:45 AM, Dan Wilcox <danomatika@gmail.commailto:danomatika@gmail.com> wrote: Well, it seems like all the authors agree and there's already an LGPL license. I only brought up all of this due to the inconsistency between whats actually there in the source files. I'd love for that to just be changed and we all move on. It's not like this is a huge patent / money maker thing. If being anal and bringing this to light truly means I *can't* use it in the long run, well than I should have done what most everyone else does in these situations: use it and keep my mouth shut :P.
We know what is allowed / not allowed by Apple, don't need a lawyer for that.
On Oct 5, 2013, at 4:22 AM, pd-list-request@iem.atmailto:pd-list-request@iem.at wrote:
On 10/04/2013 01:44 PM, Miller Puckette wrote: One (not so minor) note on this... "expr" is copyright IRCAM (hahrokh Yadegari was working for IRCAM at the time) and is also included in Max, so it might be sbject to agreements between IRCAM and Cycling '74.
I was under the impression it was under GPL, not LGPL. I just looked and saw that, indeed, the LICENSE.txt file says LGPL and the expr source code print out "GPL" on startup. The reason I think it's actually GPL is that that is how IRCAM released it -- as part of jMAX, years ago. The current code is based on that original code. Although it was extensively reworked by Shahrokh, I presume the GPL terms under which he was working required him to release the result under GPL too.
So for the moment at least, I'm afraid FUD rules.
My vote would be to keep all the original GPL licenses in Pd vanilla's expr, and to remove the LGPL readme. GPL was the licensed under which expr was originally released, so we can reasonably assume all the copyright holders agreed to that license.
If the consensus was that it should be changed in order to accomodate Pure Data builds on IOS, then everyone who wants to use expr on IOS should pool their resources and hire a lawyer to explain what is and isn't allowed under the LGPL and Apple's TOS. The lawyer should also find out if it was indeed possible to change the license to LGPL in light of what Miller brings up about the original licensing.
That's two unknowns wrt LGPL expr, and they won't be solved by revising the source nor IANAL discussions.
Best, Jonathan
Dan Wilcox @danomatika danomatika.comhttp://danomatika.com/ robotcowboy.comhttp://robotcowboy.com/
Pd-list@iem.atmailto:Pd-list@iem.at mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
Dan Wilcox @danomatika danomatika.comhttp://danomatika.com robotcowboy.comhttp://robotcowboy.com
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,
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 think
about
this. 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
On Sat, Oct 05, 2013 at 02:41:48PM +0900, i go bananas wrote:
just to clarify,
Shahrokh Yadegari, IRCAM, and the JMax developers, ALL agreed with the switch to LGPL license.
so AFAIK, the 'GPL' claim in the source code is still there simply because no-one has changed it.
On Sat, Oct 5, 2013 at 8:45 AM, Dan Wilcox danomatika@gmail.com wrote:
Well, it seems like all the authors agree and there's already an LGPL license. I only brought up all of this due to the inconsistency between whats actually there in the source files. I'd love for that to just be changed and we all move on. It's not like this is a huge patent / money maker thing. If being anal and bringing this to light truly means I *can't* use it in the long run, well than I should have done what most everyone else does in these situations: use it and keep my mouth shut :P.
We know what is allowed / not allowed by Apple, don't need a lawyer for that.
On Oct 5, 2013, at 4:22 AM, pd-list-request@iem.at wrote:
On 10/04/2013 01:44 PM, Miller Puckette wrote:
One (not so minor) note on this... "expr" is copyright IRCAM (hahrokh Yadegari was working for IRCAM at the time) and is also included in Max, so it might be sbject to agreements between IRCAM and Cycling '74.
I was under the impression it was under GPL, not LGPL. I just looked and saw that, indeed, the LICENSE.txt file says LGPL and the expr source code print out "GPL" on startup. The reason I think it's actually GPL is that that is how IRCAM released it -- as part of jMAX, years ago. The current code is based on that original code. Although it was extensively reworked by Shahrokh, I presume the GPL terms under which he was working required him to release the result under GPL too.
So for the moment at least, I'm afraid FUD rules.
My vote would be to keep all the original GPL licenses in Pd vanilla's expr, and to remove the LGPL readme. GPL was the licensed under which expr was originally released, so we can reasonably assume all the copyright holders agreed to that license.
If the consensus was that it should be changed in order to accomodate Pure Data builds on IOS, then everyone who wants to use expr on IOS should pool their resources and hire a lawyer to explain what is and isn't allowed under the LGPL and Apple's TOS. The lawyer should also find out if it was indeed possible to change the license to LGPL in light of what Miller brings up about the original licensing.
That's two unknowns wrt LGPL expr, and they won't be solved by revising the source nor IANAL discussions.
Best, Jonathan
Dan Wilcox @danomatika danomatika.com robotcowboy.com
Pd-list@iem.at mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
Pd-list@iem.at mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
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,
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 think
about
this. 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
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,
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 think
about
this. 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
Dan Wilcox @danomatika danomatika.com robotcowboy.com
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,
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 think
about
this. 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
Dan Wilcox @danomatika danomatika.com robotcowboy.com
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, 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 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,
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 think about
this. 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
Dan Wilcox @danomatika danomatika.com robotcowboy.com
Pd-list@iem.at mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
On 02/05/2014 11:55 AM, Ed Kelly wrote:
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?
just for the LGPL (this is the entire point of the LGPL)
gmdsar IOhannes
On 05/02/14 21:55, Ed Kelly wrote:
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?
The whole point of LGPL is to allow using a library with incompatibly licensed apps, while still keeping copyleft licensing for the library itself.
see the licences for details ...
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/lgpl.html http://www.gnu.org/licenses/lgpl-2.1.html
you do not need to provide sources for the apps using the library (as you do when distributing an application linked with GPLed libraries). But you do need to ensure users are free to modify the LGPL library and use their own version with the app.
Much of the discussion below was prompted by questions about using libraries with iOS and in particular compatibility with Apples stores. Apple hasn't allowed either GPL or LGPL software on their app stores, libPd avoided expr etc to conform with Apple's policies and hence be allowed on Apples app stores. Changing to LGPL won't change that, Apple does not like copyleft.
Simon
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 Sunday, 26 January 2014, 19:29, Dan Wilcoxdanomatika@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 Wilcoxdanomatika@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 Puckettemsp@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 Puckettemsp@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,
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 think about
this. 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
Dan Wilcox @danomatika danomatika.com robotcowboy.com
Pd-list@iem.at mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
Pd-list@iem.at mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
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.
From GPL vs LGPL:
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.
Also see Compatibility between the iPhone App Store and the LGPL:
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.
On Feb 5, 2014, at 5:55 AM, Ed Kelly morph_2016@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
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, 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 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,
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 think
about
this. 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
Dan Wilcox @danomatika danomatika.com robotcowboy.com
Pd-list@iem.at mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
Dan Wilcox @danomatika danomatika.com robotcowboy.com
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. 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
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@iem.at mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
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@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@iem.at mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
Pd-list@iem.at mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/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@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@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@iem.at mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
Pd-list@iem.at mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
Does anyone have an example if an eno-esque sound on sound delay system I can gander at and tweak?
Patrick Pagano B.S,M.F.A Asst. in Digital Art and Science Digital Worlds Institute University of Florida (352) 294-2020
On Oct 5, 2013, at 3:19 PM, "Miller Puckette" msp@ucsd.edu 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,
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 think
about
this. 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
On Sat, Oct 05, 2013 at 02:41:48PM +0900, i go bananas wrote:
just to clarify,
Shahrokh Yadegari, IRCAM, and the JMax developers, ALL agreed with the switch to LGPL license.
so AFAIK, the 'GPL' claim in the source code is still there simply because no-one has changed it.
On Sat, Oct 5, 2013 at 8:45 AM, Dan Wilcox danomatika@gmail.com wrote:
Well, it seems like all the authors agree and there's already an LGPL license. I only brought up all of this due to the inconsistency between whats actually there in the source files. I'd love for that to just be changed and we all move on. It's not like this is a huge patent / money maker thing. If being anal and bringing this to light truly means I *can't* use it in the long run, well than I should have done what most everyone else does in these situations: use it and keep my mouth shut :P.
We know what is allowed / not allowed by Apple, don't need a lawyer for that.
On Oct 5, 2013, at 4:22 AM, pd-list-request@iem.at wrote:
On 10/04/2013 01:44 PM, Miller Puckette wrote:
One (not so minor) note on this... "expr" is copyright IRCAM (hahrokh Yadegari was working for IRCAM at the time) and is also included in Max, so it might be sbject to agreements between IRCAM and Cycling '74.
I was under the impression it was under GPL, not LGPL. I just looked and saw that, indeed, the LICENSE.txt file says LGPL and the expr source code print out "GPL" on startup. The reason I think it's actually GPL is that that is how IRCAM released it -- as part of jMAX, years ago. The current code is based on that original code. Although it was extensively reworked by Shahrokh, I presume the GPL terms under which he was working required him to release the result under GPL too.
So for the moment at least, I'm afraid FUD rules.
My vote would be to keep all the original GPL licenses in Pd vanilla's expr, and to remove the LGPL readme. GPL was the licensed under which expr was originally released, so we can reasonably assume all the copyright holders agreed to that license.
If the consensus was that it should be changed in order to accomodate Pure Data builds on IOS, then everyone who wants to use expr on IOS should pool their resources and hire a lawyer to explain what is and isn't allowed under the LGPL and Apple's TOS. The lawyer should also find out if it was indeed possible to change the license to LGPL in light of what Miller brings up about the original licensing.
That's two unknowns wrt LGPL expr, and they won't be solved by revising the source nor IANAL discussions.
Best, Jonathan
Dan Wilcox @danomatika danomatika.com robotcowboy.com
Pd-list@iem.at mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
Pd-list@iem.at mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
Pd-list@iem.at mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
-
Dan Wilcox -
Ed Kelly -
Ed Kelly via Pd-list -
i go bananas -
IOhannes m zmölnig -
Jonathan Wilkes -
Miller Puckette -
Pagano, Patrick -
Simon Wise