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. > > On Oct 3, 2013, at 4:12 AM, pd-list-requ...@iem.at > (mailto:pd-list-requ...@iem.at) wrote: > > From: Tony Hillerson <tony.hiller...@gmail.com > > (mailto:tony.hiller...@gmail.com)> > > Subject: Re: [PD] Legal restrictions for apps > > Date: October 3, 2013 3:17:37 AM GMT+08:00 > > To: Miller Puckette <m...@ucsd.edu (mailto:m...@ucsd.edu)> > > Cc: pd-list@iem.at (mailto: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 (mailto:Pd-list@iem.at) mailing list > > > > UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> > > > > http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -------- > Dan Wilcox > @danomatika > danomatika.com (http://danomatika.com) > robotcowboy.com (http://robotcowboy.com) > > > > >
_______________________________________________ Pd-list@iem.at mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
