My approach with PdParty so far is:
GPL source code is incompatible with the Apple App Store due to the static linking requirement which means you cannot distribute GPL libs as dynamic libs which can be updated or replaced by the user
GPL patches are fine, they are text files which are not compiled into your app binary so can be freely replaced, I expose all of the GPL patches I use to the user so they can modify or update them to satisfy the distribution requirement of the GPL
I leave out [expr] & [expr~] for now. The license in the expr src folder is LGPL, but the license in the source headers is GPL and the following is printed to console when first loading the external: "expr, expr~, fexpr~ version 0.4 under GNU General Public License ". I will leave it out until those parts of the code are explicitly changed. If this has already happened, then we need to merge in those changes to libpd. So far, as Miller suggests, I've been replacing [expr] with regular math objects.
On Oct 3, 2013, at 4:12 AM, pd-list-request@iem.at wrote:
From: Tony Hillerson tony.hillerson@gmail.com Subject: Re: [PD] Legal restrictions for apps Date: October 3, 2013 3:17:37 AM GMT+08:00 To: Miller Puckette msp@ucsd.edu Cc: pd-list@iem.at
I agree that it seems like there's there's no prohibition on distributing LPGL objects, but it seems like unless I fork libpd and remove that extern I'm required to make my object code available as well. Is that other's understanding also?
-- Tony Hillerson
On Wednesday, October 2, 2013 at 13:04 PM, Miller Puckette wrote:
Hi Tony -
I'm not sure, but I always thought you can distribute LGPL objects within commercial (closed-source) software. If I'm wrong about that, the next step would be to re-rwite the patch without using expr~ and not include expr~ in the product. (I keep it as an extern to make that easy to do.)
cheers Miller
On Wed, Oct 02, 2013 at 11:32:21AM -0600, Tony Hillerson wrote:
Hey guys,
I'm wondering about the restrictions for using Pure Data patches in Android and iOS apps with libpd. I have a rudimentary understanding that if I distribute software that's released under the GPL or LGPL I need to make available my source or at least the object files of my app.
As I understand it, from the vanilla distribution contains [expr~], which is LGPL. If I use libpd, I'm distributing it, and I need to make the source or the object files of my apps available. Is that correct? Are there any paid apps that use pd and distribute through Google Play or Appstore?
-- Tony Hillerson
Pd-list@iem.at mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
Dan Wilcox @danomatika danomatika.com robotcowboy.com
On 10/02/2013 08:35 PM, Dan Wilcox wrote:
My approach with PdParty so far is:
- GPL source code is incompatible with the Apple App Store due to the
static linking requirement which means you cannot distribute GPL libs as dynamic libs which can be updated or replaced by the user
- GPL patches are fine, they are text files which are not compiled
into your app binary so can be freely replaced, I expose all of the GPL patches I use to the user so they can modify or update them to satisfy the distribution requirement of the GPL
- I leave out [expr] & [expr~] for now. The license in the expr src
folder is LGPL, but the license in the source headers is GPL and the following is printed to console when first loading the external: "expr, expr~, fexpr~ version 0.4 under GNU General Public License ". I will leave it out until those parts of the code are explicitly changed. If this has already happened, then we need to merge in those changes to libpd. So far, as Miller suggests, I've been replacing [expr] with regular math objects.
And make sure that all the authors sign off on that license change.
-Jonathan
i spent quite a long time being bounced from department to department with apple, trying to find out if i could use expr in IOS apps, and they never gave me a definitive answer. Basically they told me i'd have to hire a lawyer to find out :p
On Thu, Oct 3, 2013 at 11:39 AM, Jonathan Wilkes jancsika@yahoo.com wrote:
On 10/02/2013 08:35 PM, Dan Wilcox wrote:
My approach with PdParty so far is:
- GPL source code is incompatible with the Apple App Store due to the
static linking requirement which means you cannot distribute GPL libs as dynamic libs which can be updated or replaced by the user
- GPL patches are fine, they are text files which are not compiled into
your app binary so can be freely replaced, I expose all of the GPL patches I use to the user so they can modify or update them to satisfy the distribution requirement of the GPL
- I leave out [expr] & [expr~] for now. The license in the expr src
folder is LGPL, but the license in the source headers is GPL and the following is printed to console when first loading the external: "expr, expr~, fexpr~ version 0.4 under GNU General Public License ". I will leave it out until those parts of the code are explicitly changed. If this has already happened, then we need to merge in those changes to libpd. So far, as Miller suggests, I've been replacing [expr] with regular math objects.
And make sure that all the authors sign off on that license change.
-Jonathan
Pd-list@iem.at mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
Which means no they will torture you and never approve your app
Patrick Pagano B.S,M.F.A Asst. in Digital Art and Science Digital Worlds Institute University of Florida (352) 294-2020
On Oct 3, 2013, at 1:09 AM, "i go bananas" <hard.off@gmail.commailto:hard.off@gmail.com> wrote:
i spent quite a long time being bounced from department to department with apple, trying to find out if i could use expr in IOS apps, and they never gave me a definitive answer. Basically they told me i'd have to hire a lawyer to find out :p
On Thu, Oct 3, 2013 at 11:39 AM, Jonathan Wilkes <jancsika@yahoo.commailto:jancsika@yahoo.com> wrote: On 10/02/2013 08:35 PM, Dan Wilcox wrote: My approach with PdParty so far is:
GPL source code is incompatible with the Apple App Store due to the static linking requirement which means you cannot distribute GPL libs as dynamic libs which can be updated or replaced by the user
GPL patches are fine, they are text files which are not compiled into your app binary so can be freely replaced, I expose all of the GPL patches I use to the user so they can modify or update them to satisfy the distribution requirement of the GPL
I leave out [expr] & [expr~] for now. The license in the expr src folder is LGPL, but the license in the source headers is GPL and the following is printed to console when first loading the external: "expr, expr~, fexpr~ version 0.4 under GNU General Public License ". I will leave it out until those parts of the code are explicitly changed. If this has already happened, then we need to merge in those changes to libpd. So far, as Miller suggests, I've been replacing [expr] with regular math objects.
And make sure that all the authors sign off on that license change.
-Jonathan
Pd-list@iem.atmailto:Pd-list@iem.at mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
Pd-list@iem.atmailto:Pd-list@iem.at mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
On 03/10/13 10:39, Jonathan Wilkes wrote:
And make sure that all the authors sign off on that license change.
this was the subject of a long discussion on this list and discussions with the authors and copyright holders, check the archives for details, the license change was not done arbitrarily, the copyright holders decided to replace GPL by LGPL and took some time and care about it so I assume they did so properly.
Simon
There was quite a lot of discussion on the supercollider list about this too. Everyone is quick to share that you can't sell it. I don't want to sell anything I want to use the programs for my own use on a tablet, plain and simple.
How did RJDJ do it? I'm curious.
Patrick Pagano B.S,M.F.A Asst. in Digital Art and Science Digital Worlds Institute University of Florida (352) 294-2020
On Oct 3, 2013, at 3:35 AM, "Simon Wise" simonzwise@gmail.com wrote:
On 03/10/13 10:39, Jonathan Wilkes wrote:
And make sure that all the authors sign off on that license change.
this was the subject of a long discussion on this list and discussions with the authors and copyright holders, check the archives for details, the license change was not done arbitrarily, the copyright holders decided to replace GPL by LGPL and took some time and care about it so I assume they did so properly.
Simon
Pd-list@iem.at mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
On 10/03/13 19:37, Pagano, Patrick wrote:
There was quite a lot of discussion on the supercollider list about this too. Everyone is quick to share that you can't sell it.
why shouldn't you be able to *sell* it. i don't see any reason for not being able to sell an app that made it into the appstore, even if it has a free license. i don't recall any free software license that forbids anyone to sell the software. (most of these licenses make selling a bit dumb though, but that doesn't mean that you are not allowed to do it)
I don't want to sell anything I want to use the programs for my own use on a tablet, plain and simple.
How did RJDJ do it? I'm curious.
by not including [expr]?
fgmadsr IOhannes
Ok, great. That's helpful everyone, thank you.
If your using libpd, you can simple remove the pure-data/extra/expr~ folder and com[ile it without expr.
On Oct 3, 2013, at 10:58 PM, Tony Hillerson tony.hillerson@gmail.com wrote:
Ok, great. That's helpful everyone, thank you.
-- Tony Hillerson
On Wednesday, October 2, 2013 at 18:35 PM, Dan Wilcox wrote:
My approach with PdParty so far is:
GPL source code is incompatible with the Apple App Store due to the static linking requirement which means you cannot distribute GPL libs as dynamic libs which can be updated or replaced by the user
GPL patches are fine, they are text files which are not compiled into your app binary so can be freely replaced, I expose all of the GPL patches I use to the user so they can modify or update them to satisfy the distribution requirement of the GPL
I leave out [expr] & [expr~] for now. The license in the expr src folder is LGPL, but the license in the source headers is GPL and the following is printed to console when first loading the external: "expr, expr~, fexpr~ version 0.4 under GNU General Public License ". I will leave it out until those parts of the code are explicitly changed. If this has already happened, then we need to merge in those changes to libpd. So far, as Miller suggests, I've been replacing [expr] with regular math objects.
Dan Wilcox @danomatika danomatika.com robotcowboy.com
AFAIK, [expr]/[expr~] are not built into any libpd produced binaries, nor any other GPL/LGPL components. The user has to opt into those by adding them to their project.
So you should be good.
On Thu, Oct 3, 2013 at 11:30 AM, Dan Wilcox danomatika@gmail.com wrote:
If your using libpd, you can simple remove the pure-data/extra/expr~ folder and com[ile it without expr.
On Oct 3, 2013, at 10:58 PM, Tony Hillerson tony.hillerson@gmail.com wrote:
Ok, great. That's helpful everyone, thank you.
-- Tony Hillerson
On Wednesday, October 2, 2013 at 18:35 PM, Dan Wilcox wrote:
My approach with PdParty so far is:
- GPL source code is incompatible with the Apple App Store due to the
static linking requirement which means you cannot distribute GPL libs as dynamic libs which can be updated or replaced by the user
- GPL patches are fine, they are text files which are not compiled into
your app binary so can be freely replaced, I expose all of the GPL patches I use to the user so they can modify or update them to satisfy the distribution requirement of the GPL
- I leave out [expr] & [expr~] for now. The license in the expr src folder
is LGPL, but the license in the source headers is GPL and the following is printed to console when first loading the external: "expr, expr~, fexpr~ version 0.4 under GNU General Public License ". I will leave it out until those parts of the code are explicitly changed. If this has already happened, then we need to merge in those changes to libpd. So far, as Miller suggests, I've been replacing [expr] with regular math objects.
Dan Wilcox @danomatika danomatika.com robotcowboy.com
Pd-list@iem.at mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
Please pardon my ignorance, but would it be possible to publish an app through XYZ store and in case XYZ store does not have ability to also include source that the project author host such source on its own page and have the link to it embedded inside the app? On Oct 6, 2013 12:09 AM, "Rich E" reakinator@gmail.com wrote:
AFAIK, [expr]/[expr~] are not built into any libpd produced binaries, nor any other GPL/LGPL components. The user has to opt into those by adding them to their project.
So you should be good.
On Thu, Oct 3, 2013 at 11:30 AM, Dan Wilcox danomatika@gmail.com wrote:
If your using libpd, you can simple remove the pure-data/extra/expr~ folder and com[ile it without expr.
On Oct 3, 2013, at 10:58 PM, Tony Hillerson tony.hillerson@gmail.com wrote:
Ok, great. That's helpful everyone, thank you.
-- Tony Hillerson
On Wednesday, October 2, 2013 at 18:35 PM, Dan Wilcox wrote:
My approach with PdParty so far is:
- GPL source code is incompatible with the Apple App Store due to the
static linking requirement which means you cannot distribute GPL libs as dynamic libs which can be updated or replaced by the user
- GPL patches are fine, they are text files which are not compiled into
your app binary so can be freely replaced, I expose all of the GPL patches I use to the user so they can modify or update them to satisfy the distribution requirement of the GPL
- I leave out [expr] & [expr~] for now. The license in the expr src
folder is LGPL, but the license in the source headers is GPL and the following is printed to console when first loading the external: "expr, expr~, fexpr~ version 0.4 under GNU General Public License ". I will leave it out until those parts of the code are explicitly changed. If this has already happened, then we need to merge in those changes to libpd. So far, as Miller suggests, I've been replacing [expr] with regular math objects.
Dan Wilcox @danomatika danomatika.com robotcowboy.com
Pd-list@iem.at mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
Pd-list@iem.at mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
On 10/03/13 02:35, Dan Wilcox wrote:
- I leave out [expr] & [expr~] for now. The license in the expr src folder is LGPL,
but the license in the source headers is GPL and the following is printed to console when first loading the external: "expr, expr~, fexpr~ version 0.4
under GNU General Public
there has been extensive discussion on this with the original authors (*all* copyrightholders) of [expr] (most of it forwarded/CCed to this list), and IIRC correctly the final result as that expr has been re-licensed under the LGPL. for me this means that the code *is* LGPL, even if on load the splashscreen says that it is BSD4 or the microsoft EULA.
but of course it is annoying to have contradictory license information staring at your face (esp. when you have to argue with someone like apple), so i suggest to fix the headers and the printout.
please file a bug-report (eventually including a patch that does the fixing)
fgmasdr IOhannes
I am the one who originally pushed for expr license change, and contacted apple, and the original expr licensees, etc....
here's what happened, in summary, from my foggy memory:
i contacted the original author of expr, Mr Yadegari, and explained the situation that expr was in a strange limbo between vanilla pd and pd-extended. It's included in vanilla, but there license is different, etc etc...
When we looked into it, we found that the original license for expr was in fact LGPL, not GPL, as stated in the pd documentation. (So, as Iohannas suggests, a bug report might be a good idea)
When i asked about the possibility of changing to the pd style BSD license, Mr Yadegari was totally fine with that, and said that is what he had wished anyway. However, the expr license was now under control of the university, and i would have to contact the relevant people to ask about changing the license to BSD.
In the meantime, i had called Apple, and asked about the legality of GPL, and they said GPL was not permitted, as you need to release the code with the app, and they don't have that facility built in to their app store. Then when i asked about the possibility of LGPL, which doesn't need the source code included in the package, they sent me from person to person, and i never got a straight answer... basically they told me that if i wanted to use LGPL, i would have to hire a lawyer to speak with their lawyer.
So....it seemed like changing the expr license to BSD would be the best option. I contacted another developer who Mr Yadegari referred me to, and we spoke about the possibility of changing the license. He said no one had touched expr for years, but couldn't see any reason why not to change it. He said he'd need to check with the relevant department at the university, and with the other developers who had taken on the caretaking of expr.
And then, university summer holidays started, before i could go any further, and i never heard back again about the license.
So, as far as i understand, the expr developers i spoke to all seemed fine with the idea of BSD, but we just never got as far as getting everyone together and making the change.
On Sat, Oct 5, 2013 at 1:52 AM, IOhannes m zmölnig zmoelnig@iem.at wrote:
On 10/03/13 02:35, Dan Wilcox wrote:
- I leave out [expr] & [expr~] for now. The license in the expr src
folder is LGPL,
but the license in the source headers is GPL and the following is
printed to console
when first loading the external: "expr, expr~, fexpr~ version 0.4
under GNU General Public
there has been extensive discussion on this with the original authors (*all* copyrightholders) of [expr] (most of it forwarded/CCed to this list), and IIRC correctly the final result as that expr has been re-licensed under the LGPL. for me this means that the code *is* LGPL, even if on load the splashscreen says that it is BSD4 or the microsoft EULA.
but of course it is annoying to have contradictory license information staring at your face (esp. when you have to argue with someone like apple), so i suggest to fix the headers and the printout.
please file a bug-report (eventually including a patch that does the fixing)
fgmasdr IOhannes
Pd-list@iem.at mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
One (not so minor) note on this... "expr" is copyright IRCAM (hahrokh Yadegari was working for IRCAM at the time) and is also included in Max, so it might be sbject to agreements between IRCAM and Cycling '74.
I was under the impression it was under GPL, not LGPL. I just looked and saw that, indeed, the LICENSE.txt file says LGPL and the expr source code print out "GPL" on startup. The reason I think it's actually GPL is that that is how IRCAM released it -- as part of jMAX, years ago. The current code is based on that original code. Although it was extensively reworked by Shahrokh, I presume the GPL terms under which he was working required him to release the result under GPL too.
So for the moment at least, I'm afraid FUD rules.
cheers Miller
On Sat, Oct 05, 2013 at 02:27:37AM +0900, i go bananas wrote:
I am the one who originally pushed for expr license change, and contacted apple, and the original expr licensees, etc....
here's what happened, in summary, from my foggy memory:
i contacted the original author of expr, Mr Yadegari, and explained the situation that expr was in a strange limbo between vanilla pd and pd-extended. It's included in vanilla, but there license is different, etc etc...
When we looked into it, we found that the original license for expr was in fact LGPL, not GPL, as stated in the pd documentation. (So, as Iohannas suggests, a bug report might be a good idea)
When i asked about the possibility of changing to the pd style BSD license, Mr Yadegari was totally fine with that, and said that is what he had wished anyway. However, the expr license was now under control of the university, and i would have to contact the relevant people to ask about changing the license to BSD.
In the meantime, i had called Apple, and asked about the legality of GPL, and they said GPL was not permitted, as you need to release the code with the app, and they don't have that facility built in to their app store. Then when i asked about the possibility of LGPL, which doesn't need the source code included in the package, they sent me from person to person, and i never got a straight answer... basically they told me that if i wanted to use LGPL, i would have to hire a lawyer to speak with their lawyer.
So....it seemed like changing the expr license to BSD would be the best option. I contacted another developer who Mr Yadegari referred me to, and we spoke about the possibility of changing the license. He said no one had touched expr for years, but couldn't see any reason why not to change it. He said he'd need to check with the relevant department at the university, and with the other developers who had taken on the caretaking of expr.
And then, university summer holidays started, before i could go any further, and i never heard back again about the license.
So, as far as i understand, the expr developers i spoke to all seemed fine with the idea of BSD, but we just never got as far as getting everyone together and making the change.
On Sat, Oct 5, 2013 at 1:52 AM, IOhannes m zmölnig zmoelnig@iem.at wrote:
On 10/03/13 02:35, Dan Wilcox wrote:
- I leave out [expr] & [expr~] for now. The license in the expr src
folder is LGPL,
but the license in the source headers is GPL and the following is
printed to console
when first loading the external: "expr, expr~, fexpr~ version 0.4
under GNU General Public
there has been extensive discussion on this with the original authors (*all* copyrightholders) of [expr] (most of it forwarded/CCed to this list), and IIRC correctly the final result as that expr has been re-licensed under the LGPL. for me this means that the code *is* LGPL, even if on load the splashscreen says that it is BSD4 or the microsoft EULA.
but of course it is annoying to have contradictory license information staring at your face (esp. when you have to argue with someone like apple), so i suggest to fix the headers and the printout.
please file a bug-report (eventually including a patch that does the fixing)
fgmasdr IOhannes
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
On 10/04/2013 01:44 PM, Miller Puckette wrote:
One (not so minor) note on this... "expr" is copyright IRCAM (hahrokh Yadegari was working for IRCAM at the time) and is also included in Max, so it might be sbject to agreements between IRCAM and Cycling '74.
I was under the impression it was under GPL, not LGPL. I just looked and saw that, indeed, the LICENSE.txt file says LGPL and the expr source code print out "GPL" on startup. The reason I think it's actually GPL is that that is how IRCAM released it -- as part of jMAX, years ago. The current code is based on that original code. Although it was extensively reworked by Shahrokh, I presume the GPL terms under which he was working required him to release the result under GPL too.
So for the moment at least, I'm afraid FUD rules.
My vote would be to keep all the original GPL licenses in Pd vanilla's expr, and to remove the LGPL readme. GPL was the licensed under which expr was originally released, so we can reasonably assume all the copyright holders agreed to that license.
If the consensus was that it should be changed in order to accomodate Pure Data builds on IOS, then everyone who wants to use expr on IOS should pool their resources and hire a lawyer to explain what is and isn't allowed under the LGPL and Apple's TOS. The lawyer should also find out if it was indeed possible to change the license to LGPL in light of what Miller brings up about the original licensing.
That's two unknowns wrt LGPL expr, and they won't be solved by revising the source nor IANAL discussions.
Best, Jonathan
cheers Miller
On Sat, Oct 05, 2013 at 02:27:37AM +0900, i go bananas wrote:
I am the one who originally pushed for expr license change, and contacted apple, and the original expr licensees, etc....
here's what happened, in summary, from my foggy memory:
i contacted the original author of expr, Mr Yadegari, and explained the situation that expr was in a strange limbo between vanilla pd and pd-extended. It's included in vanilla, but there license is different, etc etc...
When we looked into it, we found that the original license for expr was in fact LGPL, not GPL, as stated in the pd documentation. (So, as Iohannas suggests, a bug report might be a good idea)
When i asked about the possibility of changing to the pd style BSD license, Mr Yadegari was totally fine with that, and said that is what he had wished anyway. However, the expr license was now under control of the university, and i would have to contact the relevant people to ask about changing the license to BSD.
In the meantime, i had called Apple, and asked about the legality of GPL, and they said GPL was not permitted, as you need to release the code with the app, and they don't have that facility built in to their app store. Then when i asked about the possibility of LGPL, which doesn't need the source code included in the package, they sent me from person to person, and i never got a straight answer... basically they told me that if i wanted to use LGPL, i would have to hire a lawyer to speak with their lawyer.
So....it seemed like changing the expr license to BSD would be the best option. I contacted another developer who Mr Yadegari referred me to, and we spoke about the possibility of changing the license. He said no one had touched expr for years, but couldn't see any reason why not to change it. He said he'd need to check with the relevant department at the university, and with the other developers who had taken on the caretaking of expr.
And then, university summer holidays started, before i could go any further, and i never heard back again about the license.
So, as far as i understand, the expr developers i spoke to all seemed fine with the idea of BSD, but we just never got as far as getting everyone together and making the change.
On Sat, Oct 5, 2013 at 1:52 AM, IOhannes m zmölnig zmoelnig@iem.at wrote:
On 10/03/13 02:35, Dan Wilcox wrote:
- I leave out [expr] & [expr~] for now. The license in the expr src
folder is LGPL,
but the license in the source headers is GPL and the following is
printed to console
when first loading the external: "expr, expr~, fexpr~ version 0.4
under GNU General Public
there has been extensive discussion on this with the original authors (*all* copyrightholders) of [expr] (most of it forwarded/CCed to this list), and IIRC correctly the final result as that expr has been re-licensed under the LGPL. for me this means that the code *is* LGPL, even if on load the splashscreen says that it is BSD4 or the microsoft EULA.
but of course it is annoying to have contradictory license information staring at your face (esp. when you have to argue with someone like apple), so i suggest to fix the headers and the printout.
please file a bug-report (eventually including a patch that does the fixing)
fgmasdr IOhannes
Pd-list@iem.at mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
Pd-list@iem.at mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
Pd-list@iem.at mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
My vote would be to keep all the original GPL licenses in Pd vanilla's expr, and to remove the LGPL readme. GPL was the licensed under which expr was originally released, so we can reasonably assume all the copyright holders agreed to that license.
If the consensus was that it should be changed in order to accomodate Pure Data builds on IOS, then everyone who wants to use expr on IOS should pool their resources and hire a lawyer to explain what is and isn't allowed under the LGPL and Apple's TOS. The lawyer should also find out if it was indeed possible to change the license to LGPL in light of what Miller brings up about the original licensing.
That's two unknowns wrt LGPL expr, and they won't be solved by revising the source nor IANAL discussions.
Best, Jonathan
Cheaper and simpler than talking to lawyers would be simply to write a new compatible one. On the way it could export an API so that other objects could evaluate expressions (you could embed them in messages, make a Max-like 'if', maybe have a thing that creates objects with expr-calculated creation arguments, etc).
cheers M
I would be all for this, often what I do is patch old code I have found over the years in Pure Data and MANY time expr~ is used for something essential so it seems That's not to say ALL of them but a lot of them do.
I think a converter would be ideal if it could exist inside of vanilla!
pp
-----Original Message----- From: pd-list-bounces@iem.at [mailto:pd-list-bounces@iem.at] On Behalf Of Miller Puckette Sent: Friday, October 04, 2013 3:50 PM To: Jonathan Wilkes Cc: pd-list@iem.at Subject: Re: [PD] Legal restrictions for apps
My vote would be to keep all the original GPL licenses in Pd vanilla's expr, and to remove the LGPL readme. GPL was the licensed under which expr was originally released, so we can reasonably assume all the copyright holders agreed to that license.
If the consensus was that it should be changed in order to accomodate Pure Data builds on IOS, then everyone who wants to use expr on IOS should pool their resources and hire a lawyer to explain what is and isn't allowed under the LGPL and Apple's TOS. The lawyer should also find out if it was indeed possible to change the license to LGPL in light of what Miller brings up about the original licensing.
That's two unknowns wrt LGPL expr, and they won't be solved by revising the source nor IANAL discussions.
Best, Jonathan
Cheaper and simpler than talking to lawyers would be simply to write a new compatible one. On the way it could export an API so that other objects could evaluate expressions (you could embed them in messages, make a Max-like 'if', maybe have a thing that creates objects with expr-calculated creation arguments, etc).
cheers M
Pd-list@iem.at mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
On 10/04/2013 03:50 PM, Miller Puckette wrote:
My vote would be to keep all the original GPL licenses in Pd vanilla's expr, and to remove the LGPL readme. GPL was the licensed under which expr was originally released, so we can reasonably assume all the copyright holders agreed to that license.
If the consensus was that it should be changed in order to accomodate Pure Data builds on IOS, then everyone who wants to use expr on IOS should pool their resources and hire a lawyer to explain what is and isn't allowed under the LGPL and Apple's TOS. The lawyer should also find out if it was indeed possible to change the license to LGPL in light of what Miller brings up about the original licensing.
That's two unknowns wrt LGPL expr, and they won't be solved by revising the source nor IANAL discussions.
Best, Jonathan
Cheaper and simpler than talking to lawyers would be simply to write a new compatible one. On the way it could export an API so that other objects could evaluate expressions (you could embed them in messages, make a Max-like 'if', maybe have a thing that creates objects with expr-calculated creation arguments, etc).
You mean like: pdint_class = class_new(gensym("int"), (t_newmethod)pdint_new, 0, sizeof(t_pdint), 0, A_EXPR, 0);
:)
-Jonathan
cheers M
I need expr~ for my apps
-----Original Message----- From: pd-list-bounces@iem.at [mailto:pd-list-bounces@iem.at] On Behalf Of Jonathan Wilkes Sent: Friday, October 04, 2013 3:34 PM To: pd-list@iem.at Subject: Re: [PD] Legal restrictions for apps
On 10/04/2013 01:44 PM, Miller Puckette wrote:
One (not so minor) note on this... "expr" is copyright IRCAM (hahrokh Yadegari was working for IRCAM at the time) and is also included in Max, so it might be sbject to agreements between IRCAM and Cycling '74.
I was under the impression it was under GPL, not LGPL. I just looked and saw that, indeed, the LICENSE.txt file says LGPL and the expr source code print out "GPL" on startup. The reason I think it's actually GPL is that that is how IRCAM released it -- as part of jMAX, years ago. The current code is based on that original code. Although it was extensively reworked by Shahrokh, I presume the GPL terms under which he was working required him to release the result under GPL too.
So for the moment at least, I'm afraid FUD rules.
My vote would be to keep all the original GPL licenses in Pd vanilla's expr, and to remove the LGPL readme. GPL was the licensed under which expr was originally released, so we can reasonably assume all the copyright holders agreed to that license.
If the consensus was that it should be changed in order to accomodate Pure Data builds on IOS, then everyone who wants to use expr on IOS should pool their resources and hire a lawyer to explain what is and isn't allowed under the LGPL and Apple's TOS. The lawyer should also find out if it was indeed possible to change the license to LGPL in light of what Miller brings up about the original licensing.
That's two unknowns wrt LGPL expr, and they won't be solved by revising the source nor IANAL discussions.
Best, Jonathan
cheers Miller
On Sat, Oct 05, 2013 at 02:27:37AM +0900, i go bananas wrote:
I am the one who originally pushed for expr license change, and contacted apple, and the original expr licensees, etc....
here's what happened, in summary, from my foggy memory:
i contacted the original author of expr, Mr Yadegari, and explained the situation that expr was in a strange limbo between vanilla pd and pd-extended. It's included in vanilla, but there license is different, etc etc...
When we looked into it, we found that the original license for expr was in fact LGPL, not GPL, as stated in the pd documentation. (So, as Iohannas suggests, a bug report might be a good idea)
When i asked about the possibility of changing to the pd style BSD license, Mr Yadegari was totally fine with that, and said that is what he had wished anyway. However, the expr license was now under control of the university, and i would have to contact the relevant people to ask about changing the license to BSD.
In the meantime, i had called Apple, and asked about the legality of GPL, and they said GPL was not permitted, as you need to release the code with the app, and they don't have that facility built in to their app store. Then when i asked about the possibility of LGPL, which doesn't need the source code included in the package, they sent me from person to person, and i never got a straight answer... basically they told me that if i wanted to use LGPL, i would have to hire a lawyer to speak with their lawyer.
So....it seemed like changing the expr license to BSD would be the best option. I contacted another developer who Mr Yadegari referred me to, and we spoke about the possibility of changing the license. He said no one had touched expr for years, but couldn't see any reason why not to change it. He said he'd need to check with the relevant department at the university, and with the other developers who had taken on the caretaking of expr.
And then, university summer holidays started, before i could go any further, and i never heard back again about the license.
So, as far as i understand, the expr developers i spoke to all seemed fine with the idea of BSD, but we just never got as far as getting everyone together and making the change.
On Sat, Oct 5, 2013 at 1:52 AM, IOhannes m zmölnig zmoelnig@iem.at wrote:
On 10/03/13 02:35, Dan Wilcox wrote:
- I leave out [expr] & [expr~] for now. The license in the expr src
folder is LGPL,
but the license in the source headers is GPL and the following is
printed to console
when first loading the external: "expr, expr~, fexpr~ version 0.4
under GNU General Public
there has been extensive discussion on this with the original authors (*all* copyrightholders) of [expr] (most of it forwarded/CCed to this list), and IIRC correctly the final result as that expr has been re-licensed under the LGPL. for me this means that the code *is* LGPL, even if on load the splashscreen says that it is BSD4 or the microsoft EULA.
but of course it is annoying to have contradictory license information staring at your face (esp. when you have to argue with someone like apple), so i suggest to fix the headers and the printout.
please file a bug-report (eventually including a patch that does the fixing)
fgmasdr IOhannes
Pd-list@iem.at mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
Pd-list@iem.at mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
Pd-list@iem.at mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
Pd-list@iem.at mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list