how hard would it be to rewrite the expr code so that it doesn't need to be GPL licensed?
or has anyone ever tried contacting the original authors and asking them to change the license so it can fit in with pd's standard BSD ??
sorry if i'm being naive. just wondering. seems a bit of a pain that vanilla pd has this one chocolate fleck.
Le 2011-10-24 à 02:27:00, i go bananas a écrit :
how hard would it be to rewrite the expr code so that it doesn't need to be GPL licensed?
The only other implementation of [expr] is [#expr], but that's GPL too. But it shows that an implementation of [expr] doesn't have to be long and complicated like the original [expr].
At the moment, [#expr] supports only floats. It was meant to also support symbols and grids, but that's not implemented yet. Signals are in some way another business, but nearly all of the same code can be reused.
or has anyone ever tried contacting the original authors and asking them to change the license so it can fit in with pd's standard BSD ??
I don't think anyone here ever wrote to the guy... you could try.
BTW, would LGPL be fine ? To GPL fans, that's easier to accept, yet it works in contexts where GPL is not acceptable, such as iPhone development. For example, the gzip codec (libz) is LGPL, yet it's used in several iPhone activities such as decompressing http streams and png images.
| Mathieu BOUCHARD ----- téléphone : +1.514.383.3801 ----- Montréal, QC
On Oct 23, 2011, at 1:45 PM, Mathieu Bouchard wrote:
Le 2011-10-24 à 02:27:00, i go bananas a écrit :
how hard would it be to rewrite the expr code so that it doesn't
need to be GPL licensed?The only other implementation of [expr] is [#expr], but that's GPL
too. But it shows that an implementation of [expr] doesn't have to
be long and complicated like the original [expr].At the moment, [#expr] supports only floats. It was meant to also
support symbols and grids, but that's not implemented yet. Signals
are in some way another business, but nearly all of the same code
can be reused.or has anyone ever tried contacting the original authors and asking
them to change the license so it can fit in with pd's standard BSD ??I don't think anyone here ever wrote to the guy... you could try.
BTW, would LGPL be fine ? To GPL fans, that's easier to accept, yet
it works in contexts where GPL is not acceptable, such as iPhone
development. For example, the gzip codec (libz) is LGPL, yet it's
used in several iPhone activities such as decompressing http streams
and png images.
I think the Apple App Store conflicts with all GNU/FSF licenses. Any
effort to switch code to BSD in order to work around Apple's lameness
should also be matched with efforts to get Apple to stop being so lame.
.hc
"Free software means you control what your computer does. Non-free
software means someone else controls that, and to some extent controls
you." - Richard M. Stallman
On 23/10/2011 19:54, Hans-Christoph Steiner wrote:
On Oct 23, 2011, at 1:45 PM, Mathieu Bouchard wrote:
Le 2011-10-24 à 02:27:00, i go bananas a écrit :
how hard would it be to rewrite the expr code so that it doesn't need to be GPL licensed? [...]
I think the Apple App Store conflicts with all GNU/FSF licenses. Any effort to switch code to BSD in order to work around Apple's lameness should also be matched with efforts to get Apple to stop being so lame.
+1
Lorenzo.
.hc
"Free software means you control what your computer does. Non-free software means someone else controls that, and to some extent controls you." - Richard M. Stallman
Pd-list@iem.at mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
From: i go bananas hard.off@gmail.com To: PD List pd-list@iem.at Sent: Sunday, October 23, 2011 1:27 PM Subject: [PD] expr alternative
how hard would it be to rewrite the expr code so that it doesn't need to be GPL licensed?
or has anyone ever tried contacting the original authors and asking them to change the license so it can fit in with pd's standard BSD ??
sorry if i'm being naive. just wondering. seems a bit of a pain that vanilla pd has this one chocolate fleck.
What is the pain?
-Jonathan
Pd-list@iem.at mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
What is the pain?
-Jonathan
Hi Jonathan,
if you want to use pd in a commercial application, and particularly if you want to use it as the basis for an iphone application, then you cannot include anything that is licensed under the GPL license. In vanilla PD, this means that you have to remove any expr objects.
The rest of pd is licensed under the 'standard improved BSD license, which if freer, and allows you to use pd for commercial applications without revealing the source code, too.
On Oct 23, 2011, at 9:47 PM, i go bananas wrote:
What is the pain?
-Jonathan
Hi Jonathan, if you want to use pd in a commercial application, and particularly
if you want to use it as the basis for an iphone application, then
you cannot include anything that is licensed under the GPL license.
In vanilla PD, this means that you have to remove any expr objects.The rest of pd is licensed under the 'standard improved BSD license,
which if freer, and allows you to use pd for commercial applications
without revealing the source code, too.
The GPL has absolutely no restrictions on commerce. You are free to
sell any GPL software however you see fit. But you must give the
source code to everyone you give the software to. As the author of a
fair mount of GPL software, I want to reiterate: please sell my
software. The more people that are using it, the more likely they'll
want to hire me to improve it.
.hc
I spent 33 years and four months in active military service and during
that period I spent most of my time as a high class muscle man for Big
Business, for Wall Street and the bankers. - General Smedley Butler
ok, so i checked out the http link that's listed at the top of expr help in pd.
http://www.crca.ucsd.edu/~yadegari/expr.html
and it says,
"Based on original sources from IRCAM's jMax http://www.ircam.fr/jmax Released under GNU's General Public License."
so, if it is based on jMax code, does that mean that the original jMax code would also have to be cleared? (it is GPL too)
"jMax is distributed under GNU’s Lesser General Public License"
is that the LGPL that mattieu is talking about?
in that case, it might be as simple as a nice email to Shadrokh Yadegari to get his expr for pd license changed to LGPL too??
i agree with hans that apple is being lame here too. but don't like my chances of getting any sort of positive action from them.
On Mon, 24 Oct 2011 11:16:18 +0900 i go bananas hard.off@gmail.com wrote:
in that case, it might be as simple as a nice email to Shadrokh Yadegari to get his expr for pd license changed to LGPL too??
What makes you think its okay to ask someone to reconsider a carefully made moral decision simply for your convenience?
What makes you think its okay to ask someone to reconsider a
carefully made moral decision simply for your convenience?<<
I thought it would be ok to ask at least? Would it really be that bad?
On Mon, Oct 24, 2011 at 4:36 PM, Andy Farnell padawan12@obiwannabe.co.ukwrote:
On Mon, 24 Oct 2011 11:16:18 +0900 i go bananas hard.off@gmail.com wrote:
in that case, it might be as simple as a nice email to Shadrokh Yadegari
to
get his expr for pd license changed to LGPL too??
-- Andy Farnell padawan12@obiwannabe.co.uk
Pd-list@iem.at mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
The GPL has absolutely no restrictions on commerce. You are free to sell
any GPL software however you see fit. But you must give the source code to everyone you give the software to.<<
sorry hans, i should have been clearer on that. i meant 'closed source commercial application'.
out of interest, what's the deal with pd being used as the audio engine for computer games, like Spore, or whatever? They don't make the source code available, do they? Wouldn't those applications also have to avoid [expr] ?
LGPL seems ok on iphone, legally at least.
http://multinc.com/2009/08/24/compatibility-between-the-iphone-app-store-and...
On Mon, Oct 24, 2011 at 4:59 PM, i go bananas hard.off@gmail.com wrote:
The GPL has absolutely no restrictions on commerce. You are free to sell
any GPL software however you see fit. But you must give the source code to everyone you give the software to.<<
sorry hans, i should have been clearer on that. i meant 'closed source commercial application'.
out of interest, what's the deal with pd being used as the audio engine for computer games, like Spore, or whatever? They don't make the source code available, do they? Wouldn't those applications also have to avoid [expr] ?
Le 2011-10-24 à 17:16:00, i go bananas a écrit :
LGPL seems ok on iphone, legally at least. http://multinc.com/2009/08/24/compatibility-between-the-iphone-app-store-and...
Too much info on the net contradicting each other. I think that we might need legal advice or something that looks more like it than an anonymous post on a blog can.
The applicability of clauses about relinking .o files seems quite tricky in the iPhone case.
| Mathieu BOUCHARD ----- téléphone : +1.514.383.3801 ----- Montréal, QC
i go bananas wrote:
out of interest, what's the deal with pd being used as the audio engine for computer games, like Spore, or whatever? They don't make the source code available, do they? Wouldn't those applications also have to avoid [expr] ?
To some extend, that's a point for GPLv3 : clarify the "I just bundle the the software as is" situation and stuff like that.
You can always have libpd embedded in a dumb socket listener software, with opened source code, and have your closed-source application connect to it via TCP. By doing so you respect the licence from a law standpoint, but you don't really respect the spirit. It's up to you to decide wheter it's a problem or not.
Le 2011-10-24 à 16:59:00, i go bananas a écrit :
out of interest, what's the deal with pd being used as the audio engine for computer games, like Spore, or whatever? They don't make the source code available, do they? Wouldn't those applications also have to avoid [expr] ?
yes.
| Mathieu BOUCHARD ----- téléphone : +1.514.383.3801 ----- Montréal, QC
On Mon, 24 Oct 2011 16:54:59 +0900 i go bananas hard.off@gmail.com wrote:
What makes you think its okay to ask someone to reconsider a
carefully made moral decision simply for your convenience?<<
I thought it would be ok to ask at least? Would it really be that bad?
Sure. I can only tell you my own experience of that. Would you care to hear why it's bad? based on personal experience I'll explain what I think. If it can be made to come across okay and not seem overly pious or judgemental. But when you say "nice email", that's actually loaded with a whole bunch of invisible values and implications, some of which are really sticky.
best, Andy
Hi,this is a silly question but,would it be possible to draw array graphs in user-selectable colors, or in different "brushes" besides point/line/curves?The ability to overlap graphs is rather useful but everything in B&W messes it up. I know the default array elements are not designed to build rich GUIs at all, but still, that simple addition would help IMHOOtherwise, any native-pd alternative?Josep M
Data structures, maybe? But I guess it would be very inefficient for large arrays (you would have to create an instance for each array element). And you need a separate subpatch to draw onto, to be able to add and substract elements easily.
2011/10/24 Jeppi Jeppi jeppiot@hotmail.com
Hi, this is a silly question but,would it be possible to draw array graphs in user-selectable colors, or in different "brushes" besides point/line/curves? The ability to overlap graphs is rather useful but everything in B&W messes it up.
I know the default array elements are not designed to build rich GUIs at all, but still, that simple addition would help IMHO Otherwise, any native-pd alternative? Josep M
Pd-list@iem.at mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
yes, a data structures abstraction could make a "enhanced" array. I've
made one once which was a step-controlled array in the y axis (which
couldn't go outside the box limits as well). You can also look at my
object jmmmp/bezier (or the audio version), which does a kind of similar
idea, but not really what you want. Or Georg Werner's weird_stave.
Data structures, maybe? But I guess it would be very inefficient for large arrays (you would
have to create an instance for each array element). And you need a separate subpatch to draw onto, to be able to add and substract elements easily.
anyway it doesn't make much sense to edit large arrays by hand - you need
a large display to do it correctly. and if the display is that large, you
can anyway add+remove points with no problem.
of course, data structures bring the normal small problems with them if
you're using a graphical display, like slowness while dragging, etc.
2011/10/24 Jeppi Jeppi jeppiot@hotmail.com
I know the default array elements are not designed to build rich GUIs at all, but still, that simple addition would help IMHO Otherwise, any native-pd alternative?
anyway, a real-coded object would be a better solution in the long run.
but it depends what you need it for, anyway.
João
Le 2011-10-24 à 12:28:00, Quim Llimona a écrit :
Data structures, maybe? But I guess it would be very inefficient for large arrays (you would have to create an instance for each array element).
AFAIR, float arrays are just plain data structures. At least, they use a built-in template defined in a hidden patch that is always loaded. That template just contains «float y» and nothing else.
This also explains why float arrays are efficient (in a normal way) in 32-bit mode, but when you use 64-bit mode they are not anymore : pd's data-structures have that restriction that the smallest thing you can put in them is a «word», where «word» is defined as the biggest of float, symbol, pointer. In 32-bit mode, they all have the same size (4 bytes each), but in 64-bit mode, the latter two are twice bigger, so, the floats have to be padded.
Pd's data-structures don't have to be allocated as separate items. They can be allocated in array-fashion, as one big block.
What I say about Pd's data-structures doesn't apply to array-like types defined in other plugins, such as GridFlow, iemmatrix, iem16, Gem, PDP. In theory, plugins can use data-structures and define new stuff about data-structures, but in practice, no-one ever did.
| Mathieu BOUCHARD ----- téléphone : +1.514.383.3801 ----- Montréal, QC
Pd's data-structures don't have to be allocated as separate items. They can be allocated in array-fashion, as one big block.
What I say about Pd's data-structures doesn't apply to array-like types defined in other plugins, such as GridFlow, iemmatrix, iem16, Gem, PDP.
In theory, plugins can use data-structures and define new stuff about data-structures, but in practice, no-one ever did.
can you explain clearly what you meant in these 2 paragraphs?
Le 2011-10-24 à 17:19:00, João Pais a écrit :
can you explain clearly what you meant in these 2 paragraphs?
Do you have clear questions ?
Pd's data-structures don't have to be allocated as separate items. They can be allocated in array-fashion, as one big block.
I can see in Pd's source code that it has separate handling of data structures for three cases : one for scalars, one for arrays, and one for searching canvases for scalars and arrays.
scalars are individually allocated, while arrays are allocated in groups. The latter is much more efficient in memory usage (though the difference matters only for large arrays of small structs).
What I say about Pd's data-structures doesn't apply to array-like types defined in other plugins, such as GridFlow, iemmatrix, iem16, Gem, PDP.
Those plugins don't use t_word at all in their definitions of arrays. They might base their arrays on float, int, short, char, char[3], or whatever else, but they don't use t_word. For pd's data structures, using t_word is not sufficient, but it's necessary. Also, t_template and t_gpointer have to be used. Only in those circumstances you can use the built-in DS classes such as [get], [set], [struct], etc.
I've never used DS myself, but just looking at Miller's help files, I can see that [element], [getsize], [setsize] have to do with DS Arrays.
In theory, plugins can use data-structures and define new stuff about data-structures, but in practice, no-one ever did.
Actually, in 2004 and/or 2007 I had grepped for t_template and similar things in the Pd CVS (before it became SVN) because I was never hearing about DS externals, and I needed to know. But no, there was nothing. Nowadays, there is still nothing. It's possible to make other renderers of DS than just the standard set of [plot], [fillpolygon], etc., but no-one has.
| Mathieu BOUCHARD ----- téléphone : +1.514.383.3801 ----- Montréal, QC
----- Original Message -----
From: Mathieu Bouchard matju@artengine.ca To: João Pais jmmmpais@googlemail.com Cc: pd-list@iem.at Sent: Monday, October 24, 2011 12:56 PM Subject: Re: [PD] coloring arrays
Le 2011-10-24 à 17:19:00, João Pais a écrit :
can you explain clearly what you meant in these 2 paragraphs?
Do you have clear questions ?
Pd's data-structures don't have to be allocated as separate
items. They
can be allocated in array-fashion, as one big block.
I can see in Pd's source code that it has separate handling of data structures for three cases : one for scalars, one for arrays, and one for searching canvases for scalars and arrays.
scalars are individually allocated, while arrays are allocated in groups. The latter is much more efficient in memory usage (though the difference matters only for large arrays of small structs).
What I say about Pd's data-structures doesn't apply to
array-like types
defined in other plugins, such as GridFlow, iemmatrix, iem16, Gem, PDP.
Those plugins don't use t_word at all in their definitions of arrays. They might base their arrays on float, int, short, char, char[3], or whatever else, but they don't use t_word. For pd's data structures, using t_word is not sufficient, but it's necessary. Also, t_template and t_gpointer have to be used. Only in those circumstances you can use the built-in DS classes such as [get], [set], [struct], etc.
I've never used DS myself, but just looking at Miller's help files, I can see that [element], [getsize], [setsize] have to do with DS Arrays.
In theory, plugins can use data-structures and define new stuff about
data-structures, but in practice, no-one ever did.
Actually, in 2004 and/or 2007 I had grepped for t_template and similar things in the Pd CVS (before it became SVN) because I was never hearing about DS externals, and I needed to know. But no, there was nothing. Nowadays, there is still nothing. It's possible to make other renderers of DS than just the standard set of [plot], [fillpolygon], etc., but no-one has.
The only DS external stuff I've seen are the ds-gui abstractions by Luke Iannini and some other library (similar to list-abs) that I can't remember the name of.
-Jonathan
| Mathieu BOUCHARD ----- téléphone : +1.514.383.3801 ----- Montréal, QC _______________________________________________ Pd-list@iem.at mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
Le 2011-10-24 à 10:32:00, Jonathan Wilkes a écrit :
The only DS external stuff I've seen are the ds-gui abstractions by Luke Iannini and some other library (similar to list-abs) that I can't remember the name of.
I mean externals as in not .pd files.
Basically same terminology as anyone else...
| Mathieu BOUCHARD ----- téléphone : +1.514.383.3801 ----- Montréal, QC
hi andy - of course i'd be very willing to know your point of view here, particularly from your firsthand experience.
i didn't even know or care a thing at all about licenses until about 2 years ago, and that was just from being employed to do the sound for an iphone app. with my own stuff i have come from a bit of an anarchist, feral techno background, where actually breaking copyright and ignoring laws was part and parcel of the scene.
all this shirt and tie business is quite foreign, but i just thought that if there was some way i could help make vanilla a little bit more 'vanilla-ish', it would be worth a try. at least worth a thread on this mailing list to see the various ins and outs of why there is currently one small section of the standard pd distribution that cannot be used in certain situations.
no disrespect to anyone is intended, but if some is somehow implied, even by sending an email, then yeah for sure, it is of course important information.
On Mon, Oct 24, 2011 at 6:55 PM, Andy Farnell padawan12@obiwannabe.co.ukwrote:
On Mon, 24 Oct 2011 16:54:59 +0900 i go bananas hard.off@gmail.com wrote:
What makes you think its okay to ask someone to reconsider a
carefully made moral decision simply for your convenience?<<
I thought it would be ok to ask at least? Would it really be that bad?
Sure. I can only tell you my own experience of that. Would you care to hear why it's bad? based on personal experience I'll explain what I think. If it can be made to come across okay and not seem overly pious or judgemental. But when you say "nice email", that's actually loaded with a whole bunch of invisible values and implications, some of which are really sticky.
best, Andy
-- Andy Farnell padawan12@obiwannabe.co.uk
On Mon, 24 Oct 2011 19:33:25 +0900 i go bananas hard.off@gmail.com wrote:
hi andy - of course i'd be very willing to know your point of view here, particularly from your firsthand experience.
I got an email like that, it kept me awake for some nights. I experienced annoyance, anger, conflict, frustration. Finally made a utilitarian choice, a greater good served by me giving up on a couple of strong principles, on that occasion. (Maybe the person involved is reading, please know that it's still okay, I did not change my mind, thanks for making me think hard about a whole lot of important things.)
The thing about a "nice email", no matter how politely and tactfully you pen it, is that such a request can feel quite uncomfortable. First it makes the assumption that the programmers choice of licence was somehow shallow, maybe even arbitrary. Let's give all programmers the benefit of the doubt and assume their intelligence extends to proper reflection. The alternative is that they inherited a licence which they have no power or choice to amend.
Secondly, when someone from your own community appeals to you to help them with a "cool project", maybe even to help them make a buck or two, I expect you are like me and rarely hesitate if its no great cost or time commitment. And if your needs and values clearly conflict, then its easy to say no and properly communicate why. But now familiar tensions between business and morality have come to the fore in the last few years, and make demands of bad faith on you. You're basically saying, I want to do this, but I am being bullied by corporation X to do it this way, and since you are the weaker of two conflicting moral opponents I choose to question your values and ask you if you will move in order to suit me (and by proxy the corporation).
To put it in plain talk, its like getting a message from an old friend who got himself mixed up with with some bad drug dealers and needs you to bail him out or something nasty is going to happen. It's a dilemma where helping or not helping feels equally wrong. Where was that friend last week, before he needed the money so bad? Giving them money will just get them more enmeshed with a bad scene.
I don't mean that to reflect on you personally, it's just something that needs to be put out there in the context "change the licence" being an option. It should be a last resort after many other options have been considered. Perfectly good choices consistent with proper moral and free market principles are; if you are a businessmen or lawyer for whom it might be an option why not start your own app store. Or if you're a coder able to pull off writing a non GPL version of the object from scratch, do that. For the rest of the artists, choosing another platform for your application would be the logical, rational choice. So would not using [expr], which is easily replaced by discrete objects and a little thought.
On Mon, 2011-10-24 at 15:26 +0100, Andy Farnell wrote:
The thing about a "nice email", no matter how politely and tactfully you pen it, is that such a request can feel quite uncomfortable. First it makes the assumption that the programmers choice of licence was somehow shallow, maybe even arbitrary. Let's give all programmers the benefit of the doubt and assume their intelligence extends to proper reflection.
The thing is, a lot of license choices ARE shallow and/or arbitrary. Some people don't really care that much about license details and just stick "something free" on there, without really considering if it does exactly what they want. I'm sorry that you had trouble handling a license-exception request, but I have a hard time seeing how a simple inquiry could be reasonably considered to be imposition on the developer.
Someone who is looking at the alternative of (1) reimplementing something because of their license needs vs (2) being able to use (and possibly contribute back to) an existing piece of code is really being dumb if they DON'T ask. If you are choosing to use a license that retains some control over the use of your program, you have to expect to be called on to say "No" every so often...
Thanks, Bill Gribble
The alternative is that they inherited a licence which they have no power or choice to amend.
Secondly, when someone from your own community appeals to you to help them with a "cool project", maybe even to help them make a buck or two, I expect you are like me and rarely hesitate if its no great cost or time commitment. And if your needs and values clearly conflict, then its easy to say no and properly communicate why. But now familiar tensions between business and morality have come to the fore in the last few years, and make demands of bad faith on you. You're basically saying, I want to do this, but I am being bullied by corporation X to do it this way, and since you are the weaker of two conflicting moral opponents I choose to question your values and ask you if you will move in order to suit me (and by proxy the corporation).
To put it in plain talk, its like getting a message from an old friend who got himself mixed up with with some bad drug dealers and needs you to bail him out or something nasty is going to happen. It's a dilemma where helping or not helping feels equally wrong. Where was that friend last week, before he needed the money so bad? Giving them money will just get them more enmeshed with a bad scene.
I don't mean that to reflect on you personally, it's just something that needs to be put out there in the context "change the licence" being an option. It should be a last resort after many other options have been considered. Perfectly good choices consistent with proper moral and free market principles are; if you are a businessmen or lawyer for whom it might be an option why not start your own app store. Or if you're a coder able to pull off writing a non GPL version of the object from scratch, do that. For the rest of the artists, choosing another platform for your application would be the logical, rational choice. So would not using [expr], which is easily replaced by discrete objects and a little thought.
Am 24.10.2011 um 11:55 schrieb Andy Farnell:
On Mon, 24 Oct 2011 16:54:59 +0900 i go bananas hard.off@gmail.com wrote:
What makes you think its okay to ask someone to reconsider a
carefully made moral decision simply for your convenience?<<
I thought it would be ok to ask at least? Would it really be that
bad?Sure. I can only tell you my own experience of that. Would you care
to hear why it's bad? based on personal experience I'll explain what I think.
I usually stay away from discussions like this, but I strongly
disagree here. IMHO asking is always ok.
My experience, both asking and being asked, is this: if you release
something, you have to deal with licensing, and though some aspects of
it are interesting, its a nuisance to deal with generally. I want to
do fun stuff with code, not wade through legal terms. What could be
better than just asking the person who wrote the code 'hey, is it ok
if i use it for this and that' and an actual human being replies? The
chance to bypass all legalese and just ask the creator is certainly a
nice feature of the internet.
Ironically, these things were - in contrast to bananas initial
question - mostly related to apple (i.e. pd code for rjdj scenes). And
while I am certainly not amused by apples current lock-in policies &
business practices, the experience of being able to talk directly with
the author for me far outweighs having licenses fighting each other,
even if its for the better of mankind or the economy.
If you have strong moral or political ideas behind your licensing
choice, I don't see a problem when the are - literally - questioned:
stand by them or question them yourself, it's your choice. And I had a
hard time following Andy's Southpark and Drug dealer analogies - even
though I read a whole book he wrote ;)
Cheers,
Georg
Sorry about the South Park bit Georg,
I was trying to be too clever and do a snotty thing, making a scathing wise-guy commentary on a company and community, while not "naming any names".
As a believer in plain communication I should have the courage to just come out and say it:
Apple are a crap company, They treat their developers like shit by making them pawns in a game, and it would serve developers better to walk away from their platform and stop helping them hurt free software.
There.
Unfortunately some sensitive people take issue with that kind of plain talk.
And you're absolutely right, as I happily concede, asking is appropriate, even if it does cause discomfort. Now, since Hardoff asked both parties, and got an enthusiastic response from the author, and IRCAM down the chain, we are just waiting for Apple to enthusiastically respond or defend their position with a cogent argument.
So far it's looking like Kafka's "Before the Law", except with riddles and obfuscated tautologies in place of the gatekeepers simple refusal.
On Sun, 30 Oct 2011 22:40:16 +0100 Georg Bosch kram@stillavailable.com wrote:
Am 24.10.2011 um 11:55 schrieb Andy Farnell:
On Mon, 24 Oct 2011 16:54:59 +0900 i go bananas hard.off@gmail.com wrote:
What makes you think its okay to ask someone to reconsider a
carefully made moral decision simply for your convenience?<<
I thought it would be ok to ask at least? Would it really be that
bad?Sure. I can only tell you my own experience of that. Would you care
to hear why it's bad? based on personal experience I'll explain what I think.I usually stay away from discussions like this, but I strongly
disagree here. IMHO asking is always ok.My experience, both asking and being asked, is this: if you release
something, you have to deal with licensing, and though some aspects of
it are interesting, its a nuisance to deal with generally. I want to
do fun stuff with code, not wade through legal terms. What could be
better than just asking the person who wrote the code 'hey, is it ok
if i use it for this and that' and an actual human being replies? The
chance to bypass all legalese and just ask the creator is certainly a
nice feature of the internet.Ironically, these things were - in contrast to bananas initial
question - mostly related to apple (i.e. pd code for rjdj scenes). And
while I am certainly not amused by apples current lock-in policies &
business practices, the experience of being able to talk directly with
the author for me far outweighs having licenses fighting each other,
even if its for the better of mankind or the economy.If you have strong moral or political ideas behind your licensing
choice, I don't see a problem when the are - literally - questioned:
stand by them or question them yourself, it's your choice. And I had a
hard time following Andy's Southpark and Drug dealer analogies - even
though I read a whole book he wrote ;)Cheers,
Georg
Pd-list@iem.at mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
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.
Le 2011-10-31 à 23:49:00, i go bananas a écrit :
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.
But people do use GPL software on Microsoft Windows, often using MinGW, which uses Microsoft's libc and other nonfree things. So, what are the difference(s) there ?
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.
Though [fexpr~] crashes in various circumstances that seem to revolve around trying to use 10 outlets or close to that (I won't try to debug it).
| Mathieu BOUCHARD ----- téléphone : +1.514.383.3801 ----- Montréal, QC
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
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.atwrote:
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
also, i think i am going to get slapped around the face again for this,
but how impossible would it be to get IRCAM to grant a BSD license for the certain section of code used in [expr] ?
i know people here are going to disagree, and yes, i can see your point, but look at this:
"jMax is a new implementation of the MAX software written originally by Miller Puckette at Ircam."
surely that means something???
i still think a license tweak is going to be a much more feasible option than having the [expr] code re-written
maybe i should just drop this? as i said in an offshoot thread, there's no personal benefit here for me here. I just use pd on my own computer at home right now, so even if i want to sample the entire metallica back catalogue and set it to copyrighted videos of madonna, no one is going to care. However, i just know from my experience doing an iPhone app 2, nearly 3 years ago, that if i could have used [expr~] it would have been a lot smoother. A unified license, at least for vanilla PD seems like the way to go though. I know [expr~] is an external, and from what people are saying about float handling and whatnot, it sounds like it should stay that way; but it has been part of the standard pd distribution for over 10 years now, and it just seems like it'd all be cooler if it were one package, one license.
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
that's what i have just asked about.
if you read back about halfway up the thread, max posted a mail saying that IRCAM are willing to change the license to LGPL.
so i'm now wondering, that of course it is a hassle to contact all the original authors, but if none of them have moral views against BSD, then maybe that would be an easier course of action that code rewrite.
On Tue, Nov 1, 2011 at 12:31 AM, Jonathan Wilkes jancsika@yahoo.com wrote:
Wouldn't you need to get permission from Ircam, too?
They are listed as a copyright holder, 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.atwrote:
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
Hi list...
Just to say that, even if my patchs are published under GPL, as I definitely need my lines to be straight (or not aliased), I would prefer [expr] to be under BSD, like Pd-Vanilla is...
Cheers...
01ivier
2011/10/31 i go bananas hard.off@gmail.com
that's what i have just asked about.
if you read back about halfway up the thread, max posted a mail saying that IRCAM are willing to change the license to LGPL.
so i'm now wondering, that of course it is a hassle to contact all the original authors, but if none of them have moral views against BSD, then maybe that would be an easier course of action that code rewrite.
On Tue, Nov 1, 2011 at 12:31 AM, Jonathan Wilkes jancsika@yahoo.comwrote:
Wouldn't you need to get permission from Ircam, too?
They are listed as a copyright holder, 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.atwrote:
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
Pd-list@iem.at mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
From: Olivier B lamouraupeuple@gmail.com To: i go bananas hard.off@gmail.com Cc: PD-List pd-list@iem.at Sent: Wednesday, November 2, 2011 8:01 AM Subject: Re: [PD] expr alternative
Hi list...
Just to say that, even if my patchs are published under GPL, as I definitely need my lines to be straight (or not aliased), I would prefer [expr] to be under BSD, like Pd-Vanilla is...
What does the license have to do with straight lines and aliasing?
-Jonathan
Cheers...
01ivier
2011/10/31 i go bananas hard.off@gmail.com
that's what i have just asked about.
if you read back about halfway up the thread, max posted a mail saying that IRCAM are willing to change the license to LGPL.
so i'm now wondering, that of course it is a hassle to contact all the original authors, but if none of them have moral views against BSD, then maybe that would be an easier course of action that code rewrite.
On Tue, Nov 1, 2011 at 12:31 AM, Jonathan Wilkes jancsika@yahoo.com wrote:
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
Pd-list@iem.at mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
-- Envie de tisser ? http://yamatierea.org/papatchs/
Pd-list@iem.at mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
2011/11/2 Jonathan Wilkes jancsika@yahoo.com
From: Olivier B lamouraupeuple@gmail.com To: i go bananas hard.off@gmail.com Cc: PD-List pd-list@iem.at Sent: Wednesday, November 2, 2011 8:01 AM Subject: Re: [PD] expr alternative
Hi list...
Just to say that, even if my patchs are published under GPL, as I
definitely need my lines to be straight (or not aliased), I would prefer [expr] to be under BSD, like Pd-Vanilla is...
What does the license have to do with straight lines and aliasing?
Sorry list...
I've certainly done a private joke only to myself... :-/ I just wanted to say that I like my Pd patches to be tidy... to have their lines (or wires, I don't know the word used in english) perfectly straight... And for the same reason, it disturbs me to know that Pd-vanilla doesn't offers the same license for all of its code... it makes disorder... (but don't worry for me... every day, I'm getting better (damed, how it's hard to try to make humor in a foreign language :-p ) )
Cheers...
01ivier...
-Jonathan
Cheers...
01ivier
2011/10/31 i go bananas hard.off@gmail.com
that's what i have just asked about.
if you read back about halfway up the thread, max posted a mail saying
that IRCAM are willing to change the license to LGPL.
so i'm now wondering, that of course it is a hassle to contact all the
original authors, but if none of them have moral views against BSD, then maybe that would be an easier course of action that code rewrite.
On Tue, Nov 1, 2011 at 12:31 AM, Jonathan Wilkes jancsika@yahoo.com
wrote:
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
Pd-list@iem.at mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management ->
http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
-- Envie de tisser ? http://yamatierea.org/papatchs/
Pd-list@iem.at mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management ->
apple just rang me.
as andy predicted, they are still being highly cagey and will not give a yes/no answer to me. grrr.
however, what they told me, was to go part of the way through developer registration, so i could read the "ios_program_standard_agreement", in which case i would "find what i need to know".
here's the clause that pertains to FOSS licensing:
"3.3.20 If Your Application includes any FOSS, You agree to comply with all applicable FOSS licensing terms. You also agree not to use any FOSS in the development of Your Application in such a way that would cause the non-FOSS portions of the Apple Software to be subject to any FOSS licensing terms or obligations."
so, to my simple mind, it appears that LGPL IS allowed in iOS applications, as long as you make the source available in a way that is LGPL compliant.
the only thing that bothers me, is this section of the iOS agreement:
"7.1 Delivery of Freely Available Licensed Applications via the App Store; Certificates If Your Application qualifies as a Licensed Application, it is eligible for delivery to end-users via the App Store by Apple and/or an Apple Subsidiary. If You would like Apple and/or an Apple Subsidiary to deliver Your Licensed Application or authorize additional content, functionality or services You make available in Your Licensed Application through the use of the In App Purchase API to end-users for free (no charge) via the App Store, then You appoint Apple and Apple Subsidiaries as Your legal agent pursuant to the terms of Schedule 1, for Licensed Applications designated by You as free of charge applications.
If Your Application qualifies as a Licensed Application and You intend to charge end-users a fee of any kind for Your Licensed Application or within Your Licensed Application through the use of the In App Purchase API, You must enter into a separate agreement (Schedule 2) with Apple and/or an Apple Subsidiary before any such commercial distribution of Your Licensed Application may take place via the App Store or before any such commercial delivery of additional content, functionality or services for which you charge end-users a fee may be authorized through the use of the In App Purchase API in Your Licensed Application."
i'm not sure if those clauses have any effect on using LGPL code?
Anyway, this is the information i have so far, and i thought i should share it.
It appears to me that if Mr Yadegari and IRCAM are willing to license expr under the LGPL, then there's a good chance that the 'full' vanilla distribution would be allowed in iOS applications.
it's very hard for me to continue looking into this matter, because there are some fairly significant moral issues and despite my laughing at people a little bit, i actually do think these things through, and it's a bit of a difficult situation.
if people are following this issue, and just not saying anything, then it would help to get a clearer consensus of the 'community view' here, as i feel very uncomfortable about pushing this issue if i am going against the general consensus.
to outline so far, there seem to be 3 main options:
- leave expr as GPL
- take up Mr Yadegari's offer to re-license under the LGPL
- raise some money or incentive for Mr Yadegari to re-write expr code to
be BSD compliant
On Fri, Nov 4, 2011 at 8:50 AM, Olivier B lamouraupeuple@gmail.com wrote:
2011/11/2 Jonathan Wilkes jancsika@yahoo.com
From: Olivier B lamouraupeuple@gmail.com To: i go bananas hard.off@gmail.com Cc: PD-List pd-list@iem.at Sent: Wednesday, November 2, 2011 8:01 AM Subject: Re: [PD] expr alternative
Hi list...
Just to say that, even if my patchs are published under GPL, as I
definitely need my lines to be straight (or not aliased), I would prefer [expr] to be under BSD, like Pd-Vanilla is...
What does the license have to do with straight lines and aliasing?
Sorry list...
I've certainly done a private joke only to myself... :-/ I just wanted to say that I like my Pd patches to be tidy... to have their lines (or wires, I don't know the word used in english) perfectly straight... And for the same reason, it disturbs me to know that Pd-vanilla doesn't offers the same license for all of its code... it makes disorder... (but don't worry for me... every day, I'm getting better (damed, how it's hard to try to make humor in a foreign language :-p ) )
Cheers...
01ivier...
-Jonathan
Cheers...
01ivier
2011/10/31 i go bananas hard.off@gmail.com
that's what i have just asked about.
if you read back about halfway up the thread, max posted a mail saying
that IRCAM are willing to change the license to LGPL.
so i'm now wondering, that of course it is a hassle to contact all the
original authors, but if none of them have moral views against BSD, then maybe that would be an easier course of action that code rewrite.
On Tue, Nov 1, 2011 at 12:31 AM, Jonathan Wilkes jancsika@yahoo.com
wrote:
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
Pd-list@iem.at mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management ->
http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
-- Envie de tisser ? http://yamatierea.org/papatchs/
Pd-list@iem.at mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management ->
-- Envie de tisser ? http://yamatierea.org/papatchs/
2011/11/4 i go bananas hard.off@gmail.com
apple just rang me.
as andy predicted, they are still being highly cagey and will not give a yes/no answer to me. grrr.
however, what they told me, was to go part of the way through developer registration, so i could read the "ios_program_standard_agreement", in which case i would "find what i need to know".
here's the clause that pertains to FOSS licensing:
"3.3.20 If Your Application includes any FOSS, You agree to comply with all applicable FOSS licensing terms. You also agree not to use any FOSS in the development of Your Application in such a way that would cause the non-FOSS portions of the Apple Software to be subject to any FOSS licensing terms or obligations."
so, to my simple mind, it appears that LGPL IS allowed in iOS applications, as long as you make the source available in a way that is LGPL compliant.
the only thing that bothers me, is this section of the iOS agreement:
"7.1 Delivery of Freely Available Licensed Applications via the App Store; Certificates If Your Application qualifies as a Licensed Application, it is eligible for delivery to end-users via the App Store by Apple and/or an Apple Subsidiary. If You would like Apple and/or an Apple Subsidiary to deliver Your Licensed Application or authorize additional content, functionality or services You make available in Your Licensed Application through the use of the In App Purchase API to end-users for free (no charge) via the App Store, then You appoint Apple and Apple Subsidiaries as Your legal agent pursuant to the terms of Schedule 1, for Licensed Applications designated by You as free of charge applications.
If Your Application qualifies as a Licensed Application and You intend to charge end-users a fee of any kind for Your Licensed Application or within Your Licensed Application through the use of the In App Purchase API, You must enter into a separate agreement (Schedule 2) with Apple and/or an Apple Subsidiary before any such commercial distribution of Your Licensed Application may take place via the App Store or before any such commercial delivery of additional content, functionality or services for which you charge end-users a fee may be authorized through the use of the In App Purchase API in Your Licensed Application."
i'm not sure if those clauses have any effect on using LGPL code?
Anyway, this is the information i have so far, and i thought i should share it.
It appears to me that if Mr Yadegari and IRCAM are willing to license expr under the LGPL, then there's a good chance that the 'full' vanilla distribution would be allowed in iOS applications.
it's very hard for me to continue looking into this matter, because there are some fairly significant moral issues and despite my laughing at people a little bit, i actually do think these things through, and it's a bit of a difficult situation.
if people are following this issue, and just not saying anything, then it would help to get a clearer consensus of the 'community view' here, as i feel very uncomfortable about pushing this issue if i am going against the general consensus.
to outline so far, there seem to be 3 main options:
- leave expr as GPL
- take up Mr Yadegari's offer to re-license under the LGPL
- raise some money or incentive for Mr Yadegari to re-write expr code to
be BSD compliant
- I offer 10€... who's next ?
On Fri, Nov 4, 2011 at 8:50 AM, Olivier B lamouraupeuple@gmail.comwrote:
2011/11/2 Jonathan Wilkes jancsika@yahoo.com
From: Olivier B lamouraupeuple@gmail.com To: i go bananas hard.off@gmail.com Cc: PD-List pd-list@iem.at Sent: Wednesday, November 2, 2011 8:01 AM Subject: Re: [PD] expr alternative
Hi list...
Just to say that, even if my patchs are published under GPL, as I
definitely need my lines to be straight (or not aliased), I would prefer [expr] to be under BSD, like Pd-Vanilla is...
What does the license have to do with straight lines and aliasing?
Sorry list...
I've certainly done a private joke only to myself... :-/ I just wanted to say that I like my Pd patches to be tidy... to have their lines (or wires, I don't know the word used in english) perfectly straight... And for the same reason, it disturbs me to know that Pd-vanilla doesn't offers the same license for all of its code... it makes disorder... (but don't worry for me... every day, I'm getting better (damed, how it's hard to try to make humor in a foreign language :-p ) )
Cheers...
01ivier...
-Jonathan
Cheers...
01ivier
2011/10/31 i go bananas hard.off@gmail.com
that's what i have just asked about.
if you read back about halfway up the thread, max posted a mail saying
that IRCAM are willing to change the license to LGPL.
so i'm now wondering, that of course it is a hassle to contact all the
original authors, but if none of them have moral views against BSD, then maybe that would be an easier course of action that code rewrite.
On Tue, Nov 1, 2011 at 12:31 AM, Jonathan Wilkes jancsika@yahoo.com
wrote:
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
> > >
Pd-list@iem.at mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management ->
http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
-- Envie de tisser ? http://yamatierea.org/papatchs/
Pd-list@iem.at mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management ->
-- Envie de tisser ? http://yamatierea.org/papatchs/
From: Olivier B lamouraupeuple@gmail.com To: i go bananas hard.off@gmail.com Cc: Jonathan Wilkes jancsika@yahoo.com; PD-List pd-list@iem.at Sent: Friday, November 4, 2011 4:29 AM Subject: Re: [PD] expr alternative
2011/11/4 i go bananas hard.off@gmail.com
apple just rang me.
as andy predicted, they are still being highly cagey and will not give a yes/no answer to me. grrr.
however, what they told me, was to go part of the way through developer registration, so i could read the "ios_program_standard_agreement", in which case i would "find what i need to know".
here's the clause that pertains to FOSS licensing:
"3.3.20 If Your Application includes any FOSS, You agree to comply with all applicable FOSS licensing terms. You also agree not to use any FOSS in the development of Your Application in such a way that would cause the non-FOSS portions of the Apple Software to be subject to any FOSS licensing terms or obligations."
so, to my simple mind, it appears that LGPL IS allowed in iOS applications, as long as you make the source available in a way that is LGPL compliant.
the only thing that bothers me, is this section of the iOS agreement:
"7.1 Delivery of Freely Available Licensed Applications via the App Store; Certificates If Your Application qualifies as a Licensed Application, it is eligible for delivery to end-users via the App Store by Apple and/or an Apple Subsidiary. If You would like Apple and/or an Apple Subsidiary to deliver Your Licensed Application or authorize additional content, functionality or services You make available in Your Licensed Application through the use of the In App Purchase API to end-users for free (no charge) via the App Store, then You appoint Apple and Apple Subsidiaries as Your legal agent pursuant to the terms of Schedule 1, for Licensed Applications designated by You as free of charge applications.
If Your Application qualifies as a Licensed Application and You intend to charge end-users a fee of any kind for Your Licensed Application or within Your Licensed Application through the use of the In App Purchase API, You must enter into a separate agreement (Schedule 2) with Apple and/or an Apple Subsidiary before any such commercial distribution of Your Licensed Application may take place via the App Store or before any such commercial delivery of additional content, functionality or services for which you charge end-users a fee may be authorized through the use of the In App Purchase API in Your Licensed Application."
i'm not sure if those clauses have any effect on using LGPL code?
Anyway, this is the information i have so far, and i thought i should share it.
It appears to me that if Mr Yadegari and IRCAM are willing to license expr under the LGPL, then there's a good chance that the 'full' vanilla distribution would be allowed in iOS applications.
it's very hard for me to continue looking into this matter, because there are some fairly significant moral issues and despite my laughing at people a little bit, i actually do think these things through, and it's a bit of a difficult situation.
if people are following this issue, and just not saying anything, then it would help to get a clearer consensus of the 'community view' here, as i feel very uncomfortable about pushing this issue if i am going against the general consensus.
to outline so far, there seem to be 3 main options:
- leave expr as GPL
- take up Mr Yadegari's offer to re-license under the LGPL
- raise some money or incentive for Mr Yadegari to re-write expr code to be BSD compliant
- I offer 10€... who's next ?
I'll put up $200 for a 3-clause-BSD-licensed [expr] family replacement where 3 / 2 = 1.5
On Fri, Nov 4, 2011 at 8:50 AM, Olivier B lamouraupeuple@gmail.com wrote:
2011/11/2 Jonathan Wilkes jancsika@yahoo.com
From: Olivier B lamouraupeuple@gmail.com To: i go bananas hard.off@gmail.com Cc: PD-List pd-list@iem.at Sent: Wednesday, November 2, 2011 8:01 AM
Subject: Re: [PD] expr alternative
Hi list...
Just to say that, even if my patchs are published under GPL, as I definitely need my lines to be straight (or not aliased), I would prefer [expr] to be under BSD, like Pd-Vanilla is...
What does the license have to do with straight lines and aliasing?
Sorry list...
I've certainly done a private joke only to myself... :-/ I just wanted to say that I like my Pd patches to be tidy... to have their lines (or wires, I don't know the word used in english) perfectly straight... And for the same reason, it disturbs me to know that Pd-vanilla doesn't offers the same license for all of its code... it makes disorder... (but don't worry for me... every day, I'm getting better (damed, how it's hard to try to make humor in a foreign language :-p ) )
Cheers...
01ivier...
-Jonathan
Cheers...
01ivier
2011/10/31 i go bananas hard.off@gmail.com
that's what i have just asked about.
if you read back about halfway up the thread, max posted a mail saying that IRCAM are willing to change the license to LGPL.
so i'm now wondering, that of course it is a hassle to contact all the original authors, but if none of them have moral views against BSD, then maybe that would be an easier course of action that code rewrite.
On Tue, Nov 1, 2011 at 12:31 AM, Jonathan Wilkes jancsika@yahoo.com wrote:
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 >> >> >>
Pd-list@iem.at mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
-- Envie de tisser ? http://yamatierea.org/papatchs/
Pd-list@iem.at mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
-- Envie de tisser ? http://yamatierea.org/papatchs/
-- Envie de tisser ? http://yamatierea.org/papatchs/
Le 2011-11-04 à 07:16:00, Jonathan Wilkes a écrit :
I'll put up $200 for a 3-clause-BSD-licensed [expr] family replacement where 3 / 2 = 1.5
3/2 = 1.5 ?
Is that another « private joke » ?
Olivier a écrit :
Just to say that, even if my patchs are published under GPL, as I definitely need my lines to be straight (or not aliased), I would prefer [expr] to be under BSD, like Pd-Vanilla is...
I've certainly done a private joke only to myself... :-/
| Mathieu BOUCHARD ----- téléphone : +1.514.383.3801 ----- Montréal, QC
----- Original Message -----
From: Mathieu Bouchard matju@artengine.ca To: Jonathan Wilkes jancsika@yahoo.com Cc: Olivier B lamouraupeuple@gmail.com; i go bananas hard.off@gmail.com; PD-List pd-list@iem.at Sent: Friday, November 4, 2011 11:39 AM Subject: Re: [PD] expr alternative
Le 2011-11-04 à 07:16:00, Jonathan Wilkes a écrit :
I'll put up $200 for a 3-clause-BSD-licensed [expr] family replacement
where 3 / 2 = 1.5
3/2 = 1.5 ?
Is that another « private joke » ?
No, I'm serious. I'll pay $200 for a replacement set of such objects where numbers are by default interpreted as floats like the rest of Pd.
-Jonathan
Olivier a écrit :
Just to say that, even if my patchs are published under
GPL, as I definitely need my lines to be straight (or not aliased), I would prefer [expr] to be under BSD, like Pd-Vanilla is...
I've certainly done a private joke only to myself... :-/
| Mathieu BOUCHARD ----- téléphone : +1.514.383.3801 ----- Montréal, QC
Le 2011-11-04 à 08:52:00, Jonathan Wilkes a écrit :
No, I'm serious. I'll pay $200 for a replacement set of such objects where numbers are by default interpreted as floats like the rest of Pd.
Oh, you mean 3/2==1.5 in the context of what gets written in [expr] boxes... for some reason, I didn't think of it when you wrote that at first.
| Mathieu BOUCHARD ----- téléphone : +1.514.383.3801 ----- Montréal, QC
I'll pitch EU 50. (while its still worth anything)
And politely encourage RjDj to dig in too.
I've made my feelings clear enough about Apple.
On Fri, 4 Nov 2011 09:29:59 +0100 Olivier B lamouraupeuple@gmail.com wrote:
2011/11/4 i go bananas hard.off@gmail.com
apple just rang me.
as andy predicted, they are still being highly cagey and will not give a yes/no answer to me. grrr.
however, what they told me, was to go part of the way through developer registration, so i could read the "ios_program_standard_agreement", in which case i would "find what i need to know".
here's the clause that pertains to FOSS licensing:
"3.3.20 If Your Application includes any FOSS, You agree to comply with all applicable FOSS licensing terms. You also agree not to use any FOSS in the development of Your Application in such a way that would cause the non-FOSS portions of the Apple Software to be subject to any FOSS licensing terms or obligations."
so, to my simple mind, it appears that LGPL IS allowed in iOS applications, as long as you make the source available in a way that is LGPL compliant.
the only thing that bothers me, is this section of the iOS agreement:
"7.1 Delivery of Freely Available Licensed Applications via the App Store; Certificates If Your Application qualifies as a Licensed Application, it is eligible for delivery to end-users via the App Store by Apple and/or an Apple Subsidiary. If You would like Apple and/or an Apple Subsidiary to deliver Your Licensed Application or authorize additional content, functionality or services You make available in Your Licensed Application through the use of the In App Purchase API to end-users for free (no charge) via the App Store, then You appoint Apple and Apple Subsidiaries as Your legal agent pursuant to the terms of Schedule 1, for Licensed Applications designated by You as free of charge applications.
If Your Application qualifies as a Licensed Application and You intend to charge end-users a fee of any kind for Your Licensed Application or within Your Licensed Application through the use of the In App Purchase API, You must enter into a separate agreement (Schedule 2) with Apple and/or an Apple Subsidiary before any such commercial distribution of Your Licensed Application may take place via the App Store or before any such commercial delivery of additional content, functionality or services for which you charge end-users a fee may be authorized through the use of the In App Purchase API in Your Licensed Application."
i'm not sure if those clauses have any effect on using LGPL code?
Anyway, this is the information i have so far, and i thought i should share it.
It appears to me that if Mr Yadegari and IRCAM are willing to license expr under the LGPL, then there's a good chance that the 'full' vanilla distribution would be allowed in iOS applications.
it's very hard for me to continue looking into this matter, because there are some fairly significant moral issues and despite my laughing at people a little bit, i actually do think these things through, and it's a bit of a difficult situation.
if people are following this issue, and just not saying anything, then it would help to get a clearer consensus of the 'community view' here, as i feel very uncomfortable about pushing this issue if i am going against the general consensus.
to outline so far, there seem to be 3 main options:
- leave expr as GPL
- take up Mr Yadegari's offer to re-license under the LGPL
- raise some money or incentive for Mr Yadegari to re-write expr code to
be BSD compliant
- I offer 10€... who's next ?
On Fri, Nov 4, 2011 at 8:50 AM, Olivier B lamouraupeuple@gmail.comwrote:
2011/11/2 Jonathan Wilkes jancsika@yahoo.com
From: Olivier B lamouraupeuple@gmail.com To: i go bananas hard.off@gmail.com Cc: PD-List pd-list@iem.at Sent: Wednesday, November 2, 2011 8:01 AM Subject: Re: [PD] expr alternative
Hi list...
Just to say that, even if my patchs are published under GPL, as I
definitely need my lines to be straight (or not aliased), I would prefer [expr] to be under BSD, like Pd-Vanilla is...
What does the license have to do with straight lines and aliasing?
Sorry list...
I've certainly done a private joke only to myself... :-/ I just wanted to say that I like my Pd patches to be tidy... to have their lines (or wires, I don't know the word used in english) perfectly straight... And for the same reason, it disturbs me to know that Pd-vanilla doesn't offers the same license for all of its code... it makes disorder... (but don't worry for me... every day, I'm getting better (damed, how it's hard to try to make humor in a foreign language :-p ) )
Cheers...
01ivier...
-Jonathan
Cheers...
01ivier
2011/10/31 i go bananas hard.off@gmail.com
that's what i have just asked about.
if you read back about halfway up the thread, max posted a mail saying
that IRCAM are willing to change the license to LGPL.
so i'm now wondering, that of course it is a hassle to contact all the
original authors, but if none of them have moral views against BSD, then maybe that would be an easier course of action that code rewrite.
On Tue, Nov 1, 2011 at 12:31 AM, Jonathan Wilkes jancsika@yahoo.com
wrote:
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
>> >> >>
Pd-list@iem.at mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management ->
http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
-- Envie de tisser ? http://yamatierea.org/papatchs/
Pd-list@iem.at mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management ->
-- Envie de tisser ? http://yamatierea.org/papatchs/
-- Envie de tisser ? http://yamatierea.org/papatchs/
Le 2011-11-04 à 16:28:00, i go bananas a écrit :
"7.1 Delivery of Freely Available Licensed Applications via the App Store; Certificates If Your Application qualifies as a Licensed Application, it is eligible for delivery to end-users via the App Store by Apple and/or an Apple Subsidiary. If You would like Apple and/or an Apple Subsidiary to deliver Your Licensed Application or authorize additional content, functionality or services You make available in Your Licensed Application through the use of the In App Purchase API to end-users for free (no charge) via the App Store, then You appoint Apple and Apple Subsidiaries as Your legal agent pursuant to the terms of Schedule 1, for Licensed Applications designated by You as free of charge applications.
Wow, does this means I can't sue Apple if they ever do anything reprehensible with my free-of-charge app ? I have to trust that they will agree to sue themselves... :}
Well, the trick is easy. You charge a nominal 0,01 $. Anyway, for Free Software (GPL/LGPL), any amount whatsoever may be charged for the final packages. The only money restriction is that you can't charge much extra for the source code, although no actual limit is stated in the license texts. For the executables, you could charge 666666,66 $ for GPL/LGPL software in the App Store and the FSF wouldn't give a damn (legally... though they might think your business model is dumb).
The only problem with 0,01 $ would then be that one has to pay the cent, and possibly extra transaction fees, rather than just click OK. Well, I never have used App Store, so I don't really know how much hassle and how much more fees it means, but as a substitute, I'm thinking of the difference between an unrestricted website vs one that wants to sell me a lot of content for a single payment of 0,01 $ via PayPal.
If Your Application qualifies as a Licensed Application and You intend to charge end-users a fee of any kind for Your Licensed Application or within Your Licensed Application through the use of the In App Purchase API, You must enter into a separate agreement (Schedule 2)
What's the « Schedule 2 » that they are talking about ?
with Apple and/or an Apple Subsidiary before any such commercial distribution of Your Licensed Application may take place via the App Store or before any such commercial delivery of additional content, functionality or services for which you charge end-users a fee may be authorized through the use of the In App Purchase API in Your Licensed Application."
Although the App Store is a big thing, this does not limit your ability to charge money in general (outside of App Store). It only applies when distributing in the App Store.
But is it ok to have to get additional permission from Apple for being allowed to charge something ? This sounds like it could conflict.
It appears to me that if Mr Yadegari and IRCAM are willing to license expr under the LGPL, then there's a good chance that the 'full' vanilla distribution would be allowed in iOS applications.
Have you read this ?
http://www.fsf.org/blogs/community/why-free-software-and-apples-iphone-dont-...
(says last modified oct 2011, but is listed somewhere else as first released july 2008)
| Mathieu BOUCHARD ----- téléphone : +1.514.383.3801 ----- Montréal, QC
On Mon, Oct 24, 2011 at 08:36:39AM +0100, Andy Farnell wrote:
On Mon, 24 Oct 2011 11:16:18 +0900 i go bananas hard.off@gmail.com wrote:
in that case, it might be as simple as a nice email to Shadrokh Yadegari to get his expr for pd license changed to LGPL too??
What makes you think its okay to ask someone to reconsider a carefully made moral decision simply for your convenience?
I don't know the specifics of the expr case, and it may well be that the GPL is something that Shadrokh Yadegari feels strongly about. Still, as a data point, when the codebase that is now Apache Lucy was granted to the ASF and we had to get 20 copyright holders to sign off on on a license change from GPL/Artistic to Apache 2.0, not a single one of them objected. Not everyone cares.
From a practical standpoint, if there have been any patches to expr since it
was added to Pd, it would be necessary to secure the consent of those authors as well, any one of whom may refuse, or might not be available. Relicensing is hard.
But especially if writing a from-scratch alternative to expr is being contemplated, I think it's commendable and wise for mr. bananas to at least explore the possibility of achieving his objective via polite requests before taking any other actions.
I don't think he should feel bad about that at all. Indeed, that is the community-friendly approach, attempting to keep development united. I choose to have faith that if expr's author receives a polite request regarding relicensing, the response will also be polite, even if it is a rebuff. If my faith is misplaced and the response is instead an indignant flame, in my opinion, that does not reflect poorly on mr. bananas.
There are those of us who are on the BSD side of the fence who also have strong moral reasons for our choices. You tend not to hear from us as often because we feel you should have the freedom to GPL works which bundle ours, just as you should have the right to release bundled software under proprietary licenses. Despite these strong beliefs, if I were to receive a sincere request to relicense software I had written under a copyleft license, I would not be offended and I would contemplate it in good faith.
Marvin Humphrey
On Mon, 24 Oct 2011 07:46:03 -0700 Marvin Humphrey marvin@rectangular.com wrote:
On Mon, Oct 24, 2011 at 08:36:39AM +0100, Andy Farnell wrote:
On Mon, 24 Oct 2011 11:16:18 +0900 i go bananas hard.off@gmail.com wrote:
in that case, it might be as simple as a nice email to Shadrokh Yadegari to get his expr for pd license changed to LGPL too??
Marvin, Bill thank you both of you make fair points in favour of petitioning developers, and in particular, silence from fear of offending _is_ silly, and I heartily agree that if you don't ask you don't get. It's not a discouragement to Matt to contact the author, who may well say sure lets do it. Neither do I valorise BSD, GPL or any other licence over another in this conversation. More original software, not dependent on a chain of licenses can be trivial to re-license. Indeed I've done it more than once with a simple email. Not to overplay the trauma of my "trouble" Bill, I've since made a full recovery you'll be pleased to know, and while the emotions may have caused thoughts, there were no permanent scars. You're right though, I've put material out with shoddily scripted or ambiguous licences, which is worse for everyone, and the truth was I didn't care more than to abandon it to the public domain for pedagogical reasons assuming anyone who apprehended it would trivially produce their own improved version.
Guys, there's a more complex point I am trying to make here, and I don't think its heard because you abstracted the case and tried to form generalisations. Great programming, lousy philosophy. :)
Corporate power and the societal assumptions that lead to its normalisation might come alive through a little story....
Eric Cartman wants a birthday party. Nay he demands it. And he demands that his friends attend. Since Cartman is popular, not being in his circle of friends means certain social exclusion, said friends are thus compelled to attend. Now Cartman is very clear. Kyle must bring a red mega-man, Stan must bring a blue mega-man. And Kenny, a green mega-man. It's not that Kenny's parents are guilty of the great sin of being poor, they could save up their food cheques and pawn them for a mega-man as Cartman rightly points out, but they don't believe in action figure violence. Mr Mc Cormick's dilemma is that he loves his son and wants him to be Cartmans friend, but resents Kennys happiness being used as a hostage to apply pressure on him, and mock his values as inadequate.
Anyway, Kenny buys the damn mega-man, swallows it, chokes and dies. The end.
Maybe I ought to be careful drawing too fine a comparison between pester power, or toxic childhood syndrome http://www.amazon.co.uk/Toxic-Childhood-Modern-Damaging-Children/dp/07528735... and the experiences of brand addicted infantilised adults working through their technology fetishes. "Oh but the shiny shiny one has this!" "Kyle Broflovskis mum bought him one!"
Kenny could beg Cartman to let him to the party without a mega-man present. As if. The truth is he hates that whining manipulative narcissistic wanker, but his insecurity means he needs to be seen as his friend, so its easier to petition a more reliable care giver.
[All characters appearing in this work are fictitious. Any resemblance to real persons, living or dead, is purely coincidental.]
Le 2011-10-24 à 11:16:00, i go bananas a écrit :
"jMax is distributed under GNU’s Lesser General Public License" http://jmax.sourceforge.net/ is that the LGPL that mattieu is talking about?
My name is Mathieu.
I no longer think that the LGPL is ok with the AppStore.
in that case, it might be as simple as a nice email to Shadrokh Yadegari to get his expr for pd license changed to LGPL too??
If it's not going to be a change to LGPL, I doubt you will have success, but I don't know the person.
| Mathieu BOUCHARD ----- téléphone : +1.514.383.3801 ----- Montréal, QC
Am 23.10.2011 um 19:27 schrieb i go bananas:
or has anyone ever tried contacting the original authors and asking them to change the license so it can fit in with pd's standard BSD ??
I've had the pleasure to meet Shahrokh Yadegari a few weeks back here in Weimar and asked him about just that. He said he always wanted to change the license to BSD. IIRC it is based on some older code which has a licence attached he can't change, so he would like to rewrite those parts but simply didn't find the time to do that yet. On the website ( http://crca.ucsd.edu/~yadegari/expr.html ) is written: “Based on original sources from IRCAM's jMax Released under GNU's General Public License.”
According to Shahrokh that would take him under a week to do but it was a matter of time/priority that it had not happened as of today. So maybe asking him nicely could to the trick. Or send a voucher for week in a californian retreat...
Max
Trying not to drift this to the usual 'anti-Apple' thing and no direct critique to the OP, But: 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 targets so much. Are yo u frustrated because a cool GPL software (like Pd) can't run on you latest iToy? I say: good! Are you frustrated because Apple withdrew a programme from the AppStore because they judged it 'inadequate'? I say: good. You are probably starting to open your eyes. Go pester Apple as much as you can *before* coming to the developer and 'ask' him/her (as politely, kindly, tenderly as you like) to change their license which is often not only some piece of shallow legality thing but (especially in the case of FLOSS) a personal, ideal often hard, decision.
That said, it is obviously developers' sacred right to decide what the hell they like with their (often hard-worked) code.
All IMHO.
Lorenzo.
On 24/10/2011 18:45, Max wrote:
Am 23.10.2011 um 19:27 schrieb i go bananas:
or has anyone ever tried contacting the original authors and asking them to change the license so it can fit in with pd's standard BSD ??
I've had the pleasure to meet Shahrokh Yadegari a few weeks back here in Weimar and asked him about just that. He said he always wanted to change the license to BSD. IIRC it is based on some older code which has a licence attached he can't change, so he would like to rewrite those parts but simply didn't find the time to do that yet. On the website ( http://crca.ucsd.edu/~yadegari/expr.html ) is written: “Based on original sources from IRCAM's jMax Released under GNU's General Public License.”
According to Shahrokh that would take him under a week to do but it was a matter of time/priority that it had not happened as of today. So maybe asking him nicely could to the trick. Or send a voucher for week in a californian retreat...
Max
Pd-list@iem.at mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
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
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.ukwrote:
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
On Tue, 25 Oct 2011 19:20:32 +0900 i go bananas hard.off@gmail.com wrote:
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.
Yes it's wonderful. The magic of Millers Pd and our persistent advocacy of it paid off, and it's opened the door for scores of new companies, hundreds of new breed audio programmers who can rapidly produce thousands of cool new products. And it's great to hear you landed on your feet with a gig doing a skilled and very enjoyable thing. ;)
It would be remiss to not mention that the early movers this direction had to fight tooth and nail _against_ the manufacturers who ultimately share in the profits of this business. And we continue to fight daily against moronic anti-economies of shortsighted, lazy, greedy, controlling "profit before productivity" thinking.
yeah. this is a very unfair part of the music industry too. the originators get forgotten, and the follow on-ers get all the benefits.
take this 'new' scene of dubstep that has just sprung up. you have american kids with faked writs cuts drawn with texta pens to impress the twilight emo vampire wannabe crowd, making terrible soul-less versions of the original sound and filling it to the brim with cheesy melodies, and snare drum rushes. the originators have earnt nothing for too long, and go back to their day jobs.
and the emo chumps sip jack daniels and diet coke with tommy lee and rave on about how they're living the rockstar lifestyle.
i am just a simple person with 5 fingers on each hand, and a high school education, and solutions to these sort of inequities are beyond me.
On Tue, Oct 25, 2011 at 8:46 PM, Andy Farnell padawan12@obiwannabe.co.ukwrote:
On Tue, 25 Oct 2011 19:20:32 +0900 i go bananas hard.off@gmail.com wrote:
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.
Yes it's wonderful. The magic of Millers Pd and our persistent advocacy of it paid off, and it's opened the door for scores of new companies, hundreds of new breed audio programmers who can rapidly produce thousands of cool new products. And it's great to hear you landed on your feet with a gig doing a skilled and very enjoyable thing. ;)
It would be remiss to not mention that the early movers this direction had to fight tooth and nail _against_ the manufacturers who ultimately share in the profits of this business. And we continue to fight daily against moronic anti-economies of shortsighted, lazy, greedy, controlling "profit before productivity" thinking.
-- Andy Farnell padawan12@obiwannabe.co.uk
I for one find all the license talk fascinating. I'm still smarting from Mathieu's response to the question 'what is free software? - answer " a set of licenses", from a while back. Whereas I like to think of it as an ethical and political manifesto/code of conduct, he's quite correct that yes it is just a bunch of licenses.
Slightly OT but has anyone come across the 'telekommunist manifesto'
http://networkcultures.org/wpmu/weblog/2010/10/21/the-telekommunist-from-dmy...
I really like some of the writing therein regarding licensing and how as a community we are getting royally fucked by the recent'ish strain of hyper-aggressive-capitalism that is loving our willingness for our work to be appropriated and incorporated within an online marketing exercise. Vimeo and soundcloud being a couple that spring to mind that I'm a content provider for (and am in the process of rethinking).
I know that in some ways this is not a new argument but it's certainly still relevant.
I think also it comes down to the same arguments I was having in the late Eighties/early Nineties where it basically comes down to - which side are you on?
I for one very consciously chose to be working within the music industry but in Manchester and very much in the Independent sector. As far as I was concerned we were cooler, 2 steps ahead, we had more fun and there was nowhere else I wanted to be. Pd and being based at the University of Huddersfield has given me that feeling back again.
In these moments I start to hear Billy Burroughs croaking in my inner ear: "watch whose money you pick up"
Cheers,
Julian
On 25 October 2011 13:17, i go bananas hard.off@gmail.com wrote:
yeah. this is a very unfair part of the music industry too. the originators get forgotten, and the follow on-ers get all the benefits.
take this 'new' scene of dubstep that has just sprung up. you have american kids with faked writs cuts drawn with texta pens to impress the twilight emo vampire wannabe crowd, making terrible soul-less versions of the original sound and filling it to the brim with cheesy melodies, and snare drum rushes. the originators have earnt nothing for too long, and go back to their day jobs.
and the emo chumps sip jack daniels and diet coke with tommy lee and rave on about how they're living the rockstar lifestyle.
i am just a simple person with 5 fingers on each hand, and a high school education, and solutions to these sort of inequities are beyond me.
On Tue, Oct 25, 2011 at 8:46 PM, Andy Farnell padawan12@obiwannabe.co.ukwrote:
On Tue, 25 Oct 2011 19:20:32 +0900 i go bananas hard.off@gmail.com wrote:
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.
Yes it's wonderful. The magic of Millers Pd and our persistent advocacy of it paid off, and it's opened the door for scores of new companies, hundreds of new breed audio programmers who can rapidly produce thousands of cool new products. And it's great to hear you landed on your feet with a gig doing a skilled and very enjoyable thing. ;)
It would be remiss to not mention that the early movers this direction had to fight tooth and nail _against_ the manufacturers who ultimately share in the profits of this business. And we continue to fight daily against moronic anti-economies of shortsighted, lazy, greedy, controlling "profit before productivity" thinking.
-- Andy Farnell padawan12@obiwannabe.co.uk
Pd-list@iem.at mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
Le 2011-10-25 à 15:06:00, Julian Brooks a écrit :
I for one find all the license talk fascinating. I'm still smarting from Mathieu's response to the question 'what is free software? - answer " a set of licenses", from a while back. Whereas I like to think of it as an ethical and political manifesto/code of conduct, he's quite correct that yes it is just a bunch of licenses.
It's reductionist to call it just a bunch of licenses, but for certain aspects, it's all that matters. However, if we're thinking about why those licenses exist and why people use them, we have to think of people, manifestoes, and the events that led people to change their minds so that they would want to write manifestoes and licenses, etc.
| Mathieu BOUCHARD ----- téléphone : +1.514.383.3801 ----- Montréal, QC
On Tue, 25 Oct 2011 10:58:19 -0400 (EDT) Mathieu Bouchard matju@artengine.ca wrote:
Le 2011-10-25 à 15:06:00, Julian Brooks a écrit :
I for one find all the license talk fascinating. I'm still smarting from Mathieu's response to the question 'what is free software? - answer " a set of licenses", from a while back. Whereas I like to think of it as an ethical and political manifesto/code of conduct, he's quite correct that yes it is just a bunch of licenses.
It's reductionist to call it just a bunch of licenses, but for certain aspects, it's all that matters. However, if we're thinking about why those licenses exist and why people use them, we have to think of people, manifestoes, and the events that led people to change their minds so that they would want to write manifestoes and licenses, etc.
It is both. You cannot have a legal instrument, a license or contract, that is free from values. All human values are necessarily political and ethical.
Even though they are not contracts, in simplest terms licenses invoke some payment of a debt. Somebody did some work. Repayment for that work could be made in promissory notes backed by a bank. Or by an agreement to observe certain behaviours. So licenses can stand in for a contract by which the parties basically agree that monetary compensation is not the kind of consideration required, but some other value, like recognising a copyright or propagating a freedom.
Let's put this in another light. A license bypasses the coercive power of money and goes straight to coercion. With GPL the author wants something in return, a behaviour. With BSD the author wants something in return, a different kind of behaviour. One is not a crusader while the other is a nihilist. You can see where the whole split in BSD and GPL philosophy arises now. BSD basically abdicates that power and by saying "Do what thy will" protects the value of the code. GPL says "Do what I will", which is to protect the wishes of the coder. On the one hand BSD puts product before producer, which seems systematic and anti-humanist, on the other GPL ignores the zero sum fallacy of a zero cost reproduction, because the loss to freedom by one is a loss to freedom for all.
Two conceptual precedents might be useful. The first is in Rousseau's social contract where he claims that freedom starts where the law begins. The other can be found in Marcuse's analysis of tolerance as a potential form of tyranny. Through these you can see that there are _no_ devices that grant, remove, or simply ignore the behaviour of others, that are somehow free from values. It is this Pre-enlightenment thinking, where the Law is an abstract eternal point of view, beyond and above society, that is out of date.
a.
Le 2011-10-25 à 12:46:00, Andy Farnell a écrit :
And we continue to fight daily against moronic anti-economies of shortsighted, lazy, greedy, controlling "profit before productivity" thinking.
Doesn't that sound like banks getting governments to steal from the poor for them ? I mean, tax on its own is not stealing, but when it's for funding bankers' mistakes so that they can do the same mistakes over and over again and get rewarded for them, ... it's worse than stealing.
Just meaning that even though DRM in entertainment/telecom industry is somewhat infuriating (App Store, DVD zoning, TV encryption, etc) and scary, there are much more infuriating and scary things happening outside of it.
| Mathieu BOUCHARD ----- téléphone : +1.514.383.3801 ----- Montréal, QC
Le 2011-10-25 à 19:20:00, i go bananas a écrit :
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.
AFAIK, Pd's original license was the same license that the BSD operating system had been using since the seventies. That's probably the oldest free license you can still encounter these days. However, Pd's license as I have always known it, was created by Richard M Stallman in the late nineties in his campaign to make all free software more legally compatible with each other. It replaced the original BSD license almost everywhere. It was quite an easy switch, because it really was just about deleting the advertisement-clause.
BSD licenses have been historically important. They caused BSD OS' builtin internet support to be ported to most other OSes, including Windows (first as a separate Trumpet WinSock DLL). Ironically, Linux did not use it. As another big example of BSD license use, OSX started in the late eighties under the name NeXTStep by forking a whole BSD OS. The DRM-crippled iOS we're talking about is, in turn, a derivative of OSX.
| Mathieu BOUCHARD ----- téléphone : +1.514.383.3801 ----- Montréal, QC
I just want to point out, not that it changes your point so much, but McCartney made Supercollider as a commercial venture for himself and earned a living off of it for a while. I believe it was several hundred dollars originally.
When he went to work for Apple, he released it into the opensource realm (and returned the money for anyone who had bought it too close to the opensource release)
Like I said, it doesn't change your argument any, but it is a point to note.
Also, not that it matters so much anymore, Apple's lossless codec is now open source
r
On Tue, Oct 25, 2011 at 11:20 AM, i go bananas hard.off@gmail.com wrote:
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
Pd-list@iem.at mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
Le 2011-10-25 à 10:17:00, Andy Farnell a écrit :
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.
That's not anything new, BTW. In the 80's, a company took the market by storm, by being such picky control freaks about their 6502-based platform. Their name was Nintendo. They didn't have private-key signing, but they did sue some unauthorised manufacturers, and I don't know what else they did, but very few ROMs did not bear their « Seal of Quality ».
(The Seal might have been only a North-American thing though, or perhaps a non-Japan thing... I don't know. Nintendo and related companies sometimes have had wildly different marketing depending on the continent)
| Mathieu BOUCHARD ----- téléphone : +1.514.383.3801 ----- Montréal, QC
Update: Shahrokh just wrote me that he has asked IRCAM if they would be okay with releasing the expr code under LGPL.
Quote: “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.”
So what is the situation now that expr could be LGPL instead of GPL? What does that mean for things like the Apple App Store?
max
Am 24.10.2011 um 18:45 schrieb Max:
Am 23.10.2011 um 19:27 schrieb i go bananas:
or has anyone ever tried contacting the original authors and asking them to change the license so it can fit in with pd's standard BSD ??
I've had the pleasure to meet Shahrokh Yadegari a few weeks back here in Weimar and asked him about just that. He said he always wanted to change the license to BSD. IIRC it is based on some older code which has a licence attached he can't change, so he would like to rewrite those parts but simply didn't find the time to do that yet. On the website ( http://crca.ucsd.edu/~yadegari/expr.html ) is written: “Based on original sources from IRCAM's jMax Released under GNU's General Public License.”
According to Shahrokh that would take him under a week to do but it was a matter of time/priority that it had not happened as of today. So maybe asking him nicely could to the trick. Or send a voucher for week in a californian retreat...
Max_______________________________________________ Pd-list@iem.at mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
Le 2011-10-25 à 12:19:00, Max a écrit :
So what is the situation now that expr could be LGPL instead of GPL? What does that mean for things like the Apple App Store?
In the end I'm not sure anymore that LGPL would be fine, even though it does look like Apple ships with LGPL libs. (Though it's not impossible they might have rewritten them just to avoid the license...).
There's too much contradiction between comments about it on the web, so, to sort out the subtleties, it would be best to ask the FSF about it.
Well, you could ask Apple too. But I bet that the FSF will give more attention to your question.
| Mathieu BOUCHARD ----- téléphone : +1.514.383.3801 ----- Montréal, QC
On Oct 25, 2011, at 10:15 AM, Mathieu Bouchard wrote:
Le 2011-10-25 à 12:19:00, Max a écrit :
So what is the situation now that expr could be LGPL instead of
GPL? What does that mean for things like the Apple App Store?In the end I'm not sure anymore that LGPL would be fine, even though
it does look like Apple ships with LGPL libs. (Though it's not
impossible they might have rewritten them just to avoid the
license...).There's too much contradiction between comments about it on the web,
so, to sort out the subtleties, it would be best to ask the FSF
about it.Well, you could ask Apple too. But I bet that the FSF will give more
attention to your question.
The problems are with software that ships from the Apple App Store,
due to the way that is managed and the Terms of Service. It is the
management and terms of service of the App Store that conflict with
the GPL/LGPL. Apple ships lots of GPL and LGPL software as part of
Mac OS X and iOS, but that does not touch the Apple App Store, so they
can be in complete compliance.
So Max, if you are interested in the Apple App Store, I think it is
incompatible with all FSF licenses, and perhaps all copyleft
licenses. The short term answer is to ship your iOS apps outside of
the App Store, and the real fix is to get Apple to make their App
Store compatible with copyleft licenses.
.hc
Programs should be written for people to read, and only incidentally
for machines to execute.
- from Structure and Interpretation of Computer Programs
Am 25.10.2011 um 19:10 schrieb Hans-Christoph Steiner:
On Oct 25, 2011, at 10:15 AM, Mathieu Bouchard wrote:
Le 2011-10-25 à 12:19:00, Max a écrit :
So what is the situation now that expr could be LGPL instead of GPL? What does that mean for things like the Apple App Store?
In the end I'm not sure anymore that LGPL would be fine, even though it does look like Apple ships with LGPL libs. (Though it's not impossible they might have rewritten them just to avoid the license...).
There's too much contradiction between comments about it on the web, so, to sort out the subtleties, it would be best to ask the FSF about it.
Well, you could ask Apple too. But I bet that the FSF will give more attention to your question.
The problems are with software that ships from the Apple App Store, due to the way that is managed and the Terms of Service. It is the management and terms of service of the App Store that conflict with the GPL/LGPL. Apple ships lots of GPL and LGPL software as part of Mac OS X and iOS, but that does not touch the Apple App Store, so they can be in complete compliance.
So Max, if you are interested in the Apple App Store, I think it is incompatible with all FSF licenses, and perhaps all copyleft licenses. The short term answer is to ship your iOS apps outside of the App Store, and the real fix is to get Apple to make their App Store compatible with copyleft licenses.
The question was asked by the author of expr - maybe I must re-phrase: Now that IRCAM is okay with changing their license of parts of expr from GPL to LGPL would that solve the issue of expr beeing used in the BSD vanilla in applications like for instance RJDJ in the Apple App store? (Or respectively any other use scenario where the choice of license imposes restrictions) If the answer is yes, then Shahrokh can go ahead and change the licence, fixed. If the answer is no, then a rewrite of expr to be fully BSD is probably the only solution to solve this.
m.
On Oct 25, 2011, at 1:26 PM, Max wrote:
Am 25.10.2011 um 19:10 schrieb Hans-Christoph Steiner:
On Oct 25, 2011, at 10:15 AM, Mathieu Bouchard wrote:
Le 2011-10-25 à 12:19:00, Max a écrit :
So what is the situation now that expr could be LGPL instead of
GPL? What does that mean for things like the Apple App Store?In the end I'm not sure anymore that LGPL would be fine, even
though it does look like Apple ships with LGPL libs. (Though it's
not impossible they might have rewritten them just to avoid the
license...).There's too much contradiction between comments about it on the
web, so, to sort out the subtleties, it would be best to ask the
FSF about it.Well, you could ask Apple too. But I bet that the FSF will give
more attention to your question.The problems are with software that ships from the Apple App Store,
due to the way that is managed and the Terms of Service. It is the
management and terms of service of the App Store that conflict with
the GPL/LGPL. Apple ships lots of GPL and LGPL software as part of
Mac OS X and iOS, but that does not touch the Apple App Store, so
they can be in complete compliance.So Max, if you are interested in the Apple App Store, I think it is
incompatible with all FSF licenses, and perhaps all copyleft
licenses. The short term answer is to ship your iOS apps outside
of the App Store, and the real fix is to get Apple to make their
App Store compatible with copyleft licenses.The question was asked by the author of expr - maybe I must re- phrase: Now that IRCAM is okay with changing their license of parts
of expr from GPL to LGPL would that solve the issue of expr beeing
used in the BSD vanilla in applications like for instance RJDJ in
the Apple App store? (Or respectively any other use scenario where
the choice of license imposes restrictions) If the answer is yes,
then Shahrokh can go ahead and change the licence, fixed. If the
answer is no, then a rewrite of expr to be fully BSD is probably the
only solution to solve this.
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.
.hc
¡El pueblo unido jamás será vencido!
----- Original Message -----
From: Hans-Christoph Steiner hans@at.or.at To: Max abonnements@revolwear.com Cc: PD list pd-list@iem.at; Shahrokh Yadegari sdy@ucsd.edu Sent: Tuesday, October 25, 2011 1:29 PM Subject: Re: [PD] expr alternative
On Oct 25, 2011, at 1:26 PM, Max wrote:
Am 25.10.2011 um 19:10 schrieb Hans-Christoph Steiner:
On Oct 25, 2011, at 10:15 AM, Mathieu Bouchard wrote:
Le 2011-10-25 à 12:19:00, Max a écrit :
So what is the situation now that expr could be LGPL instead of
GPL? What does that mean for things like the Apple App Store?
In the end I'm not sure anymore that LGPL would be fine, even
though it does look like Apple ships with LGPL libs. (Though it's not impossible they might have rewritten them just to avoid the license...).
There's too much contradiction between comments about it on the
web, so, to sort out the subtleties, it would be best to ask the FSF about it.
Well, you could ask Apple too. But I bet that the FSF will give
more attention to your question.
The problems are with software that ships from the Apple App Store, due
to the way that is managed and the Terms of Service. It is the management and terms of service of the App Store that conflict with the GPL/LGPL. Apple ships lots of GPL and LGPL software as part of Mac OS X and iOS, but that does not touch the Apple App Store, so they can be in complete compliance.
So Max, if you are interested in the Apple App Store, I think it is
incompatible with all FSF licenses, and perhaps all copyleft licenses. The short term answer is to ship your iOS apps outside of the App Store, and the real fix is to get Apple to make their App Store compatible with copyleft licenses.
The question was asked by the author of expr - maybe I must re-phrase: Now
that IRCAM is okay with changing their license of parts of expr from GPL to LGPL would that solve the issue of expr beeing used in the BSD vanilla in applications like for instance RJDJ in the Apple App store? (Or respectively any other use scenario where the choice of license imposes restrictions) If the answer is yes, then Shahrokh can go ahead and change the licence, fixed. If the answer is no, then a rewrite of expr to be fully BSD is probably the only solution to solve this.
If someone rewrites it with a 3-clause BSD license, I hope they also address some of expr family's shortcomings. The ones I know are 1) string concatenation with dollarsign variables doesn't work, and 2) all the expr objects have a Max-centric view of numbers that clashes with Pd's "everything-is-a-float" philosophy. (If you don't understand what I mean, matju has written about it on the list and I've also documented it in the revised PDDP help patches for expr.)
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.
http://www.fsf.org/blogs/licensing/more-about-the-app-store-gpl-enforcement
.hc
¡El pueblo unido jamás será vencido!
Pd-list@iem.at mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
Le 2011-10-25 à 10:45:00, Jonathan Wilkes a écrit :
- all the expr objects have a Max-centric view of numbers that clashes
with Pd's "everything-is-a-float" philosophy. (If you don't understand what I mean, matju has written about it on the list and I've also documented it in the revised PDDP help patches for expr.)
That's also a current difference between [expr] and [#expr], though it will probably not stay completely like that, because GF makes a big point of having several different number types in grids. So, whenever I write the other half of [#expr] (add grid processing), it will probably support the 6 number types of grids, instead of the 2 of jMax/Max or the 1 of Pd. Until then, [#expr] only does floats.
I think that [#expr] will not have ints outside of grids, but I have not really thought about it yet.
| Mathieu BOUCHARD ----- téléphone : +1.514.383.3801 ----- Montréal, QC
----- Original Message -----
From: Mathieu Bouchard matju@artengine.ca To: Jonathan Wilkes jancsika@yahoo.com Cc: Hans-Christoph Steiner hans@at.or.at; Max abonnements@revolwear.com; PD list pd-list@iem.at; Shahrokh Yadegari sdy@ucsd.edu Sent: Tuesday, October 25, 2011 2:31 PM Subject: Re: [PD] expr alternative
Le 2011-10-25 à 10:45:00, Jonathan Wilkes a écrit :
- all the expr objects have a Max-centric view of numbers that clashes
with Pd's "everything-is-a-float" philosophy. (If you don't understand what I mean, matju has written about it on the list and I've also documented it in the revised PDDP help patches for expr.)
That's also a current difference between [expr] and [#expr], though it will probably not stay completely like that, because GF makes a big point of having several different number types in grids. So, whenever I write the other half of [#expr] (add grid processing), it will probably support the 6 number types of grids, instead of the 2 of jMax/Max or the 1 of Pd. Until then, [#expr] only does floats.
I think that [#expr] will not have ints outside of grids, but I have not really thought about it yet.
It's worth noting that the current [expr] is both "Max-centric"-- because numbers written as integers imply integer math-- and incompatible with Max-- because in object boxes Pd strips the decimal from "1." which is a common idiom in Max to force float math.
Any attempt at a new/improved expr should realize this and just forget being max compatible and try to make it as Pd-ish as possible.
-Jonathan
| Mathieu BOUCHARD ----- téléphone : +1.514.383.3801 ----- Montréal, QC
On Oct 25, 2011, at 3:38 PM, Jonathan Wilkes wrote:
----- Original Message -----
From: Mathieu Bouchard matju@artengine.ca To: Jonathan Wilkes jancsika@yahoo.com Cc: Hans-Christoph Steiner hans@at.or.at; Max <abonnements@revolwear.com
; PD list pd-list@iem.at; Shahrokh Yadegari sdy@ucsd.edu
Sent: Tuesday, October 25, 2011 2:31 PM Subject: Re: [PD] expr alternative
Le 2011-10-25 à 10:45:00, Jonathan Wilkes a écrit :
- all the expr objects have a Max-centric view of numbers that
clashes
with Pd's "everything-is-a-float" philosophy. (If you don't understand what I mean, matju has written about it on the list and
I've also documented it in the revised PDDP help patches for expr.)That's also a current difference between [expr] and [#expr], though
it will probably not stay completely like that, because GF makes a big
point of having several different number types in grids. So, whenever I write the
other half of [#expr] (add grid processing), it will probably support the 6
number types of grids, instead of the 2 of jMax/Max or the 1 of Pd. Until then, [#expr] only does floats.I think that [#expr] will not have ints outside of grids, but I
have not really thought about it yet.It's worth noting that the current [expr] is both "Max-centric"--
because numbers written as integers imply integer math-- and incompatible with Max--
because in object boxes Pd strips the decimal from "1." which is a common idiom in Max
to force float math.Any attempt at a new/improved expr should realize this and just
forget being max compatible and try to make it as Pd-ish as possible.
That sounds like a bug that should be reported to the tracker, at the
very least.
.hc
I spent 33 years and four months in active military service and during
that period I spent most of my time as a high class muscle man for Big
Business, for Wall Street and the bankers. - General Smedley Butler
Le 2011-10-25 à 12:38:00, Jonathan Wilkes a écrit :
It's worth noting that the current [expr] is both "Max-centric"-- because numbers written as integers imply integer math-- and incompatible with Max-- because in object boxes Pd strips the decimal from "1." which is a common idiom in Max to force float math.
Pd also turns «1.0» (and such) into «1».
However, Pd never strips those things if they get parsed as symbols.
thus [expr 1.0/2] gives 0.5 whereas [expr 1.0 /2] will become [expr 1 /2] which will give 0.
| Mathieu BOUCHARD ----- téléphone : +1.514.383.3801 ----- Montréal, QC
----- Original Message -----
From: Mathieu Bouchard matju@artengine.ca To: Jonathan Wilkes jancsika@yahoo.com Cc: Hans-Christoph Steiner hans@at.or.at; Max abonnements@revolwear.com; PD list pd-list@iem.at; Shahrokh Yadegari sdy@ucsd.edu Sent: Tuesday, October 25, 2011 3:47 PM Subject: Re: [PD] expr alternative
Le 2011-10-25 à 12:38:00, Jonathan Wilkes a écrit :
It's worth noting that the current [expr] is both
"Max-centric"-- because numbers written as integers imply integer math-- and incompatible with Max-- because in object boxes Pd strips the decimal from "1." which is a common idiom in Max to force float math.
Pd also turns «1.0» (and such) into «1».
However, Pd never strips those things if they get parsed as symbols.
thus [expr 1.0/2] gives 0.5 whereas [expr 1.0 /2] will become [expr 1 /2] which will give 0.
Right, but that punishes the Pd users by making them use Max notation to force floating point math, and it confuses the Max users coming to (or porting patches to) Pd, who learn Pd's float-centrism then are forced to relearn some bizarro version of Max number types where spaces matter.
But I wouldn't call that a bug because I can't remember if [expr] claims to be Max-compatible or not.
-Jonathan
| Mathieu BOUCHARD ----- téléphone : +1.514.383.3801 ----- Montréal, QC
Le 2011-10-25 à 14:02:00, Jonathan Wilkes a écrit :
Right, but that punishes the Pd users by making them use Max notation to force floating point math, and it confuses the Max users coming to (or porting patches to) Pd, who learn Pd's float-centrism then are forced to relearn some bizarro version of Max number types where spaces matter.
I know, but I just wanted to state it like it is, not like we'd like it to be.
| Mathieu BOUCHARD ----- téléphone : +1.514.383.3801 ----- Montréal, QC
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 ... but it seems that Apple is deeply opposed to GPL and all it represents, they have always been happy to use Open Source code, and contributed some too, but have stuck to BSD licensed code where-ever they can, and only used GPL stuff when they had no other choice.
They seem to object to the idea that using open source code should require a reciprocal release of their own improvements and would rather use the work of others, but keep their own contributions secret and for their profit only.
This is quite a common attitude, and I assume the reason a lot of companies prefer BSD code. But I believe that the reason Linux is as strong as it is is exactly because of its license ... any corporation (or any individual) that wishes to use Linux legally and distribute their version must do their part and publish their improvements.
Simon
----- Original Message -----
From: Simon Wise simonzwise@gmail.com To: pd-list@iem.at Cc: Sent: Tuesday, October 25, 2011 8:51 PM Subject: Re: [PD] expr alternative
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 ... but it seems that Apple is deeply opposed to GPL and all it represents, they have always been happy to use Open Source code, and contributed some too, but have stuck to BSD licensed code where-ever they can, and only used GPL stuff when they had no other choice.
They seem to object to the idea that using open source code should require a reciprocal release of their own improvements and would rather use the work of others, but keep their own contributions secret and for their profit only.
It's worse than that-- they want to lock their customers into using their hardware only in the ways they intend. Ever tried syncing an Ipad with a free software operating system?
Free software devs spend an inordinate amount of time getting free software operating systems to work with hardware for which the manufacture gives very little documentation or support whatsoever-- not to mention hardware like Apple's which gets periodic firmware updates specifically to break compatibility with anything other than Itunes. So it's not even really about refusing to give back to the community-- it's about making the device less useful by arbitrarily limiting what the user can do with it. I can't think of a better polar opposite for pure data.
-Jonathan
This is quite a common attitude, and I assume the reason a lot of companies prefer BSD code. But I believe that the reason Linux is as strong as it is is exactly because of its license ... any corporation (or any individual) that wishes to use Linux legally and distribute their version must do their part and publish their improvements.
Simon
Pd-list@iem.at mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
On 26/10/11 09:53, Jonathan Wilkes wrote:
It's worse than that-- they want to lock their customers into using their hardware only in the ways they intend. Ever tried syncing an Ipad with a free software operating system?
indeed it is, but I was trying to focus on the open source issue as relates to code.
Their corporate strategy regarding creating and maintaining a monopoly on as many technologies as they can, and taking a percentage of every transaction within those monopoly platforms is very sensible and reasonable way to maximise profits if you have the resources and embrace free market principles.
Most economists and all free market advocates assume this is as a good thing, and the best way to run a society. Obviously I personally disagree very strongly with this assertion, and so do many others. But the current "western" model of society says this behaviour is not only legal, but is admirable - a best practice example of successful marketing and a very profitable business model.
It is all bullshit, but many many voters disagree with me on this.
Simon
Free software devs spend an inordinate amount of time getting free software operating systems to work with hardware for which the manufacture gives very little documentation or support whatsoever-- not to mention hardware like Apple's which gets periodic firmware updates specifically to break compatibility with anything other than Itunes. So it's not even really about refusing to give back to the community-- it's about making the device less useful by arbitrarily limiting what the user can do with it. I can't think of a better polar opposite for pure data.
-Jonathan
This is quite a common attitude, and I assume the reason a lot of companies prefer BSD code. But I believe that the reason Linux is as strong as it is is exactly because of its license ... any corporation (or any individual) that wishes to use Linux legally and distribute their version must do their part and publish their improvements.
Simon
Pd-list@iem.at mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
Le 2011-10-26 à 10:32:00, Simon Wise a écrit :
Their corporate strategy regarding creating and maintaining a monopoly on as many technologies as they can, and taking a percentage of every transaction within those monopoly platforms is very sensible and reasonable way to maximise profits if you have the resources and embrace free market principles.
A monopoly is not a free market.
Laissez-faire doesn't make a market free either.
What do you mean by « free market » ???
| Mathieu BOUCHARD ----- téléphone : +1.514.383.3801 ----- Montréal, QC
On 26/10/11 12:26, Mathieu Bouchard wrote:
Le 2011-10-26 à 10:32:00, Simon Wise a écrit :
Their corporate strategy regarding creating and maintaining a monopoly on as many technologies as they can, and taking a percentage of every transaction within those monopoly platforms is very sensible and reasonable way to maximise profits if you have the resources and embrace free market principles.
A monopoly is not a free market.
Laissez-faire doesn't make a market free either.
What do you mean by « free market » ???
<** off-topic warning - stop reading immediately if you are not interested **>
By "free market" in that context I am talking about the grab-bag of ideas that are promoted under that label by a very noisy and influential section of the press and economics commentators (especially but not only in the English speaking parts of the press) and are embraced as some kind of axiomatic "good thing" by many voters in this part of the world (Australia).
I mean the underlying assertions that the best way to manage the allocation of resources across society is allowing everything to be bought and sold for a dollar price, and that the best decisions for a society are made when responding to the so-called invisible hand of the market.
I mean the assertion that the profit motive and 'success' in this market is the only workable way to decide what activities should receive funding and resources in our society.
I mean the assertion that to ensure the best management of the facilities and services that we all rely on for a decent life these should be sold into private ownership and the management disciplined by this free market. And yes, this does often lead to monopolies, and yes - the profit motive (seen as pure and fair and not tainted by other inappropriate motivations by many free market advocates) combined with a minimally regulated market and the potential for a monopoly means that corporations big enough to do so will of course put a lot of effort into achieving such profitable monopolies within this market. Those, like Apple, that do achieve this position are then lauded as examples of the positive and profitable outcomes achievable by such market based policies.
Clearly from my tone above I do not believe that this "free market" is a fair or decent way to organise society, though it is probably a reasonable way to deal with the distribution of the kind of goods and services that are not basic things expected by everyone, and that can be readily bought and sold in a shop or such.
Simon
Le 2011-10-26 à 18:41:00, Simon Wise a écrit :
By "free market" in that context I am talking about the grab-bag of ideas that are promoted under that label by a very noisy and influential section of the press and economics commentators (especially but not only in the English speaking parts of the press) and are embraced as some kind of axiomatic "good thing" by many voters in this part of the world (Australia).
Ok, looking at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_market I can already see that there have been multiple different uses of that expression.
I mean the underlying assertions that the best way to manage the allocation of resources across society is allowing everything to be bought and sold for a dollar price,
Even buying votes, selling souls, and... «paying» attention, of course.
and that the best decisions for a society are made when responding to the so-called invisible hand of the market.
The invisible hand ? Sounds like that's the hand of one of the companies secretly plotting to become a monopoly. Surely not Santa Claus' hand.
Clearly from my tone above I do not believe that this "free market" is a fair or decent way to organise society,
Agreed...
though it is probably a reasonable way to deal with the distribution of the kind of goods and services that are not basic things expected by everyone,
Has a cell phone become something too basic for that, or not yet ?
Anyway, I agree (for things not considered basic), but only after minimum wage law, employee protection laws, consumer protection laws, telecom laws, and the rest of the large corpus of relevant laws that a free market of any kind can't come up with. All the laws shape the market in various ways that aren't due to supply&demand nor contract law, and much of that is in the blind-spot of economic theory (let alone economic ideology).
| Mathieu BOUCHARD ----- téléphone : +1.514.383.3801 ----- Montréal, QC
On Wed, 26 Oct 2011 10:55:22 -0400 (EDT) Mathieu Bouchard matju@artengine.ca wrote:
and that the best decisions for a society are made when responding to the so-called invisible hand of the market.
The invisible hand ?
Heretic of little faith! Is it not the hand of God? The last force from which us masters of everything still retreat in confusion? Will our economist priests save us? We must make sacrifices. Human sacrifices.
On 27/10/11 04:49, Andy Farnell wrote:
On Wed, 26 Oct 2011 10:55:22 -0400 (EDT) Mathieu Bouchardmatju@artengine.ca wrote:
and that the best decisions for a society are made when responding to the so-called invisible hand of the market.
The invisible hand ?
Heretic of little faith! Is it not the hand of God? The last force from which us masters of everything still retreat in confusion? Will our economist priests save us? We must make sacrifices. Human sacrifices.
Many many people have already been sacrificed to that particular alter.
On 26/10/11 22:55, Mathieu Bouchard wrote:
Le 2011-10-26 à 18:41:00, Simon Wise a écrit :
Anyway, I agree (for things not considered basic), but only after minimum wage law, employee protection laws, consumer protection laws, telecom laws, and the rest of the large corpus of relevant laws that a free market of any kind can't come up with. All the laws shape the market in various ways that aren't due to supply&demand nor contract law, and much of that is in the blind-spot of economic theory (let alone economic ideology).
yes
----- Original Message -----
From: Simon Wise simonzwise@gmail.com To: Mathieu Bouchard matju@artengine.ca Cc: "pd-list@iem.at" pd-list@iem.at Sent: Wednesday, October 26, 2011 6:41 AM Subject: [PD] [OT] Re: expr alternative
On 26/10/11 12:26, Mathieu Bouchard wrote:
Le 2011-10-26 à 10:32:00, Simon Wise a écrit :
Their corporate strategy regarding creating and maintaining a monopoly
on as
many technologies as they can, and taking a percentage of every
transaction
within those monopoly platforms is very sensible and reasonable way to maximise profits if you have the resources and embrace free market
principles.
A monopoly is not a free market.
Laissez-faire doesn't make a market free either.
What do you mean by « free market » ???
<** off-topic warning - stop reading immediately if you are not interested **>
By "free market" in that context I am talking about the grab-bag of ideas that are promoted under that label by a very noisy and influential section of the press and economics commentators (especially but not only in the English speaking parts of the press) and are embraced as some kind of axiomatic "good thing" by many voters in this part of the world (Australia).
I mean the underlying assertions that the best way to manage the allocation of resources across society is allowing everything to be bought and sold for a dollar price, and that the best decisions for a society are made when responding to the so-called invisible hand of the market.
I mean the assertion that the profit motive and 'success' in this market is the only workable way to decide what activities should receive funding and resources in our society.
I mean the assertion that to ensure the best management of the facilities and services that we all rely on for a decent life these should be sold into private ownership and the management disciplined by this free market. And yes, this does often lead to monopolies, and yes - the profit motive (seen as pure and fair and not tainted by other inappropriate motivations by many free market advocates) combined with a minimally regulated market and the potential for a monopoly means that corporations big enough to do so will of course put a lot of effort into achieving such profitable monopolies within this market. Those, like Apple, that do achieve this position are then lauded as examples of the positive and profitable outcomes achievable by such market based policies.
From the context, I thought it was clear that this is what you meant when you used the term (people also call this "free market fundamentalism"). It's not a set of principles, but a rhetorical technique that company A uses to publicly rail against regulation X, which doesn't benefit them, while quietly lobbying for regulation Y, which does. It's more persuasive than saying, "One dollar one vote."
Clearly from my tone above I do not believe that this "free market" is a fair or decent way to organise society, though it is probably a reasonable way to deal with the distribution of the kind of goods and services that are not basic things expected by everyone, and that can be readily bought and sold in a shop or such.
Simon
Pd-list@iem.at mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
Le 2011-10-26 à 07:58:00, Jonathan Wilkes a écrit :
From the context, I thought it was clear that this is what you meant when you used the term (people also call this "free market fundamentalism").
Well, I basically could guess, but I consider that use of the term to be abusive. But there are lots of variations of opinion and even more ways of stating it and I wanted to know what Simon would come up with.
It's not a set of principles, but a rhetorical technique that company A uses to publicly rail against regulation X, which doesn't benefit them, while quietly lobbying for regulation Y, which does. It's more persuasive than saying, "One dollar one vote."
Interesting. I haven't heard it that way before.
| Mathieu BOUCHARD ----- téléphone : +1.514.383.3801 ----- Montréal, QC
On Tue, 25 Oct 2011 18:53:30 -0700 (PDT) Jonathan Wilkes jancsika@yahoo.com wrote:
little documentation or support whatsoever-- not to mention hardware like Apple's which gets periodic firmware updates specifically to break compatibility with anything other than Itunes.
This is what I mean by anti-economics. Like when EU trade agreements meant that farmers burned food surplus 1000 miles away from famine. Like the legendary E.T. landfill where Atari dumped millions of game cartridges in an act of vanity.
The principle of destroying wealth to create profit is disgusting. It is less damaging at the global level to just print money. It is one man digging a hole and another filling it in, to create employment. And it is predicated on the fallacy of infinite resources.
DRM, region lockouts, deliberate (and maintained) incompatibilities, are all part of the "defective by design" rationale, a deliberate anti-choice approach that must be carefully distinguished from plurality and competition.
Fully working generic units are shipped from China. Then we break them. Sometimes we employ as many people to limit the functionality of devices as to design and create them. This ensures they end up in landfills sooner than necessary. If people understood its impact, phone locking would be illegal on purely environmental grounds.
These paradoxes of instrumental reason that Nash and Marcuse visited in different ways, through game theory and critique aren't inevitable or intrinsic problems. They require short-sighted stupidity to come alive.
The necessary conditions for short term thinking are not just crisis, but traits like vanity, duplicity and deception that go with marketing dominated companies where image is valued over impact and form over function. The distance between the Apple "1984" television advert and current corporate stance is breathtaking.
Le 2011-10-26 à 07:09:00, Andy Farnell a écrit :
This is what I mean by anti-economics. Like when EU trade agreements meant that farmers burned food surplus 1000 miles away from famine. Like the legendary E.T. landfill where Atari dumped millions of game cartridges in an act of vanity.
I don't know how you reach that conclusion about the E.T. game. When reading the story, it immediately looked to me as an act of shame : Atari already was losing tons of money making way more cartridges than people wanted to buy, and they didn't want to lose twice for the same blunder by also scaring off shareholders, I suppose. Well, they could have also lost a 3rd and 4th by further losing the general confidence of potential customers and potential employees. The incentive to hide the mistake was too big. They also couldn't have easily brought back some of the money by recycling cartridge components... I don't know why, but I'm sure they thought about it.
The principle of destroying wealth to create profit is disgusting.
Much before the EU, in the Great Depression of the 1930's, supply was kept low by destroying food, in order to prevent prices from going down. As a result, lots of (non-homeless) people had to start going through garbage cans to find the only stuff that wasn't vastly overpriced. In QC (under first ministers Taschereau & Duplessis), much of the action was to de-urbanise the poor, to make them less dependent of money, notably by giving them land parcels in the vast virgin boreal forests of Abitibi. Learning that was part of the mandatory grade 10 curriculum for us. But I suppose that the idea of destroying food is much older than that... though doing it for bureaucratic reasons might be more recent than doing it covertly for preserving private interests.
Fully working generic units are shipped from China. Then we break them. Sometimes we employ as many people to limit the functionality of devices as to design and create them.
In QC, Pierre Couture (an INRS engineer) joined the state utility company and invented a new kind of electric wheel-motor in 1994, and 17 years later there are still hardly any electric cars around (even though electricity is really cheap around here), and they all come from foreign countries. You can bet that when the project was cancelled in 1996, it wasn't for technical reasons. (Part of the story has since been turned into fiction for Philippe Falardeau's crazy motion picture named Congorama)
That's yet another case of artificial scarcity...
The distance between the Apple "1984" television advert and current corporate stance is breathtaking.
As an XCode/iOS developer, I know how stringent the developer licenses are... we have to very routinely renew our authorisation to be iOS developers, otherwise we can only run stuff in the emulator. And back when the ad came out, in 1984, Apple was also selling developer licenses at high prices (though without private-key protections) while the evil faceless empire of big brother IBM sold a PC that was actually free to develop for.
La liberté c'est l'esclavage, et l'ignorance c'est la force...
| Mathieu BOUCHARD ----- téléphone : +1.514.383.3801 ----- Montréal, QC
On Oct 25, 2011, at 8:51 PM, 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 ... but it seems that Apple is
deeply opposed to GPL and all it represents, they have always been
happy to use Open Source code, and contributed some too, but have
stuck to BSD licensed code where-ever they can, and only used GPL
stuff when they had no other choice.They seem to object to the idea that using open source code should
require a reciprocal release of their own improvements and would
rather use the work of others, but keep their own contributions
secret and for their profit only.This is quite a common attitude, and I assume the reason a lot of
companies prefer BSD code. But I believe that the reason Linux is as
strong as it is is exactly because of its license ... any
corporation (or any individual) that wishes to use Linux legally and
distribute their version must do their part and publish their
improvements.
This isn't entirely true with Apple, but it is becoming more and more
true. Apple has done some real contributions to free software, WebKit
is one good example, though they forked off of KHTML in a bit of a
punkish way. Then they merged the BSD parts of Mac OS X with FreeBSD
so its the same code base. They paid Daniel Steffen to port Tcl/Tk to
Cocoa as well. They also contribute to gcc, which is GPL software,
and its their main compiler for both Mac OS X and iOS.
Then came iOS, and they got crazy.
.hc
Terrorism is not an enemy. It cannot be defeated. It's a tactic.
It's about as sensible to say we declare war on night attacks and
expect we're going to win that war. We're not going to win the war on
terrorism. - retired U.S. Army general, William Odom
Le 2011-10-25 à 23:28:00, Hans-Christoph Steiner a écrit :
They also contribute to gcc, which is GPL software, and its their main compiler for both Mac OS X and iOS. Then came iOS, and they got crazy.
In XCode 4.2, they removed the option named just «GCC», leaving the choice between «GCC LLVM» and «Apple LLVM», and if you pick the former, they pop a warning that suggests that you upgrade your project-file to use the latter. That's what I saw yesterday, from memory.
So, what exactly is «Apple LLVM» ?
| Mathieu BOUCHARD ----- téléphone : +1.514.383.3801 ----- Montréal, QC
Am 26.10.2011 um 05:28 schrieb Hans-Christoph Steiner:
On Oct 25, 2011, at 8:51 PM, 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 ... but it seems that Apple is deeply opposed to GPL and all it represents, they have always been happy to use Open Source code, and contributed some too, but have stuck to BSD licensed code where-ever they can, and only used GPL stuff when they had no other choice.
They seem to object to the idea that using open source code should require a reciprocal release of their own improvements and would rather use the work of others, but keep their own contributions secret and for their profit only.
This is quite a common attitude, and I assume the reason a lot of companies prefer BSD code. But I believe that the reason Linux is as strong as it is is exactly because of its license ... any corporation (or any individual) that wishes to use Linux legally and distribute their version must do their part and publish their improvements.
This isn't entirely true with Apple, but it is becoming more and more true. Apple has done some real contributions to free software, WebKit is one good example, though they forked off of KHTML in a bit of a punkish way. Then they merged the BSD parts of Mac OS X with FreeBSD so its the same code base. They paid Daniel Steffen to port Tcl/Tk to Cocoa as well. They also contribute to gcc, which is GPL software, and its their main compiler for both Mac OS X and iOS.
Then came iOS, and they got crazy.
it's getting quite OT here but there is also CUPS http://www.cups.org/documentation.php/license.html
m.
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.
Best,
Marvin Humphrey
----- 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
On Oct 26, 2011, at 1:20 AM, Marvin Humphrey wrote:
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.
We're talking about freedom here. If you want to write a BSD-licensed
expr clone, please do. I don't think you'll find any objections. The
objections have been to people asking others to change the licenses
they chose.
.hc
http://at.or.at/hans/
My 2c:
- if you want someone to change their licensing, at least be willing
to offer them some cash. basically, you buy the new licensing. this part is not free! I would go as far as saying it's unpolite to ask to switch a license without offering money.
If you write a clone, be original lest you be sued.
Colloquy IRC chat client is an example of a GPL software that has a
BSD core and mobile version. Not sure if that's because the authors are the copyright holders so they can switch licensing as they please. See:
http://colloquy.info/project/wiki/Source%20Code
Ricardo Fabbri
Linux registered user #175401 labmacambira.sf.net
On Wed, Oct 26, 2011 at 2:42 PM, Hans-Christoph Steiner hans@at.or.at wrote:
On Oct 26, 2011, at 1:20 AM, Marvin Humphrey wrote:
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.
We're talking about freedom here. If you want to write a BSD-licensed expr clone, please do. I don't think you'll find any objections. The objections have been to people asking others to change the licenses they chose.
.hc
Pd-list@iem.at mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
Le 2011-10-26 à 17:04:00, Ricardo Fabbri a écrit :
- Colloquy IRC chat client is an example of a GPL software that has a
BSD core and mobile version. Not sure if that's because the authors are the copyright holders so they can switch licensing as they please.
It looks fairly clear that this software has no relicensing, and instead has two different licenses for two different parts.
Isn't it ?
| Mathieu BOUCHARD ----- téléphone : +1.514.383.3801 ----- Montréal, QC
On Wed, 2011-10-26 at 17:04 -0200, Ricardo Fabbri wrote:
- if you want someone to change their licensing, at least be willing
to offer them some cash. basically, you buy the new licensing. this part is not free! I would go as far as saying it's unpolite to ask to switch a license without offering money.
What makes you think that it's more polite to offer money than offering cooking spaghetti with pesto sauce for all his/her friends or helping code something in another project? IMHO, one major advantage of being involved in open source software development is the freedom to contribute what I want, when I want, how much I want etc. and as long as there is no money involved it is easy to keep that freedom untouched. In a similar manner an author is free to change the licensing of their software whenever they want to whatever they want. Probably, this decision for a certain license was done carefully or rather in a light-headed manner. Either way, I'm not clear whether offering money is the (morally) right incentive to re-think that decision. One could even argue that it is corrupting the initial ideal of the original decision. When you say "basically, you buy the new licensing" this sounds to me very much like business lingo about commercial software and also like you were applying economic concepts of commercial software to open source software. To me it's not obvious that in order to get a different license you have to pay money for it.
Roman
oh FFS.
can all the politcal activists just leave this thread alone now?
aren't you all meant to be occupying wall street anyway?
as Max already pointed out, Shadrokh himself wanted expr to be BSD from the start, so all the political/moral/religious discussions about GPL and blah blah blah, just take it all to [OT] where it belongs.
On Thu, 27 Oct 2011 17:52:26 +0900 i go bananas hard.off@gmail.com wrote:
oh FFS.
This is for _your_ sake.
Dismissing the implications of the coversation you started seems a little ungrateful, if you don't mind me saying so.
if people want to talk politics in a thread started by a person with "bananas" in their name, then what do they expect?
get back to occupying wall street you hippies!
On Thu, 27 Oct 2011 19:00:55 +0900 i go bananas hard.off@gmail.com wrote:
if people want to talk politics in a thread started by a person with "bananas" in their name, then what do they expect?
LOL. Well there you go. Welcome to the fruit basket.
get back to occupying wall street you hippies!
I think all the hippes took jobs in banks in '69 It's their pissed off kids making meery hell outside.
well, i have taken the first step towards harrassing apple.
this is the next page i was sent to after i sent the mail:
" Thank You
Thank you for taking the time to contact us.
If you do not receive a response from an Apple employee, we regret that we are unable to process your request. Please note that due to the high volume of requests we receive, this may be the only other reply you will receive from us.
We appreciate your interest and consideration in contacting Apple.
Best Regards,
Apple Legal Copyright Team"
I know it takes a fair amount of faith, but you could try and contact Steve Jobs directly.
Pierre
2011/10/27 i go bananas hard.off@gmail.com
well, i have taken the first step towards harrassing apple.
this is the next page i was sent to after i sent the mail:
" Thank You
Thank you for taking the time to contact us.
If you do not receive a response from an Apple employee, we regret that we are unable to process your request. Please note that due to the high volume of requests we receive, this may be the only other reply you will receive from us.
We appreciate your interest and consideration in contacting Apple.
Best Regards,
Apple Legal Copyright Team"
Pd-list@iem.at mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
Emailing is a good start. A better way to get their attention is to
file a bug report.
.hc
On Oct 27, 2011, at 10:15 AM, i go bananas wrote:
well, i have taken the first step towards harrassing apple.
this is the next page i was sent to after i sent the mail:
" Thank You
Thank you for taking the time to contact us.
If you do not receive a response from an Apple employee, we regret
that we are unable to process your request. Please note that due to
the high volume of requests we receive, this may be the only other
reply you will receive from us.We appreciate your interest and consideration in contacting Apple.
Best Regards,
Apple Legal Copyright Team"
Pd-list@iem.at mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
"We have nothing to fear from love and commitment." - New York Senator
Diane Savino, trying to convince the NY Senate to pass a gay marriage
bill
-
Andy Farnell -
Bill Gribble -
Charles Goyard -
Georg Bosch -
Hans-Christoph Steiner -
i go bananas -
Jeppi Jeppi -
Jonathan Wilkes -
João Pais -
Julian Brooks -
Lorenzo Sutton -
Marvin Humphrey -
Mathieu Bouchard -
Max -
Olivier B -
Pierre Massat -
Quim Llimona -
Ricardo Fabbri -
Rick -
Roman Haefeli -
Simon Wise