thanks for that excellent information Simon! very descriptive. i am partially wondering about this myself because there are a few developers out there using PD/libpd as a sound engine for games, and one obstacle encountered is that it is not possible to use pd-extended under libpd because of the issues copyleft/GPL presents when creating iOS apps. i am personally in favor of open source/copyleft myself, but it is a significant issue. i for one would love to see the cyclone library (both audio and data objects) ported under a different license - is this just a matter of recompiling from source independently, or should i get permission from the maintainer (i think it's HC, right?) to do so?
scott BTW i think Robotcowboy looks great, although i was also curious where Chris M's PdParty (iOS version of DroidParty) alpha port went. On Fri, Nov 2, 2012 at 7:05 PM, Simon Wise <simonzw...@gmail.com> wrote: > On 02/11/12 11:04, Scott R. Looney wrote: > >> i had heard that to be totally safe you needed to use MIT or BSD licensing >> on the external. has anyone found that to be generally true? >> > > To sell an app on the App Store you give apple a license to distribute it > and they agree to give you 70% (or so) of what they sell each DRM locked > copy for, the business model here is selling the right to use individual > copies of binaries of Apps. The end user license that the App Store offers > is the right to use a copy the App in a restricted way in exchange for a > one-off payment. > > Any code that is Public Domain, or at least licensed so that there is no > restriction on redistribution of the binaries is compatible with that > model. Any code that requires the distributor to provide source code is > not, Apple does not like that and will not do so. > > So if by 'safe' you mean compliant with the needs of Apples business model > then giving them a license for code which is Pubic Domain is 'safe', as is > giving them a license any code that can be redistributed as closed source > binaries. > > Any copyleft license that restricts use of the code to open source > projects only by requiring the distributor to provide the source code is > 'unsafe'. It is unacceptable to Apple and will not fit in their App Store. > > I believe most GPL code is intentionally copyleft, the (original) > developers actively did not want to give it away for use in closed source > projects. > > Many are willing to sell their code to closed source projects with a > different license, but of course each contributor must agree to the license > given to Apple and many would want to be given a reasonable share of that > 70% in exchange for the use of that code. If that 70% is actually $0 then > they must be willing to allow closed source, DRM locked redistribution of > their code without payment. That may well conflict with their own business > model, they may consider this 'unsafe'. > > > Simon > > > ______________________________**_________________ > Pd-list@iem.at mailing list > UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> http://lists.puredata.info/** > listinfo/pd-list <http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list> >
_______________________________________________ Pd-list@iem.at mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list