Ah well. I'll just have to write a new one based on pd source code and
first-principles!
That's what happens...
Ed
Ninja Jamm - a revolutionary new music remix app from Ninja Tune and Seeper,
for iPhone and iPad
http://www.ninjajamm.com/
Gemnotes-0.2: Live music notation for Pure Data, now with dynamics!
http://sharktracks.co.uk/
On Monday, 9 June 2014, 23:00, Ed Kelly wrote:
>
>
>OK, so I realise I've made a fundamental mistake here.
>
>
>For the latest update of the Pd patch I make for Ninja Tune, I used iem16.
>Looking at it now I realise that it has a GPL, not an LGPL license. So, I
>can't use it right? They won't release the source code for the entire app!
>
>
>Oh shit. This is really serious!
>Best,
>Ed
>
>Ninja Jamm - a revolutionary new music remix app from Ninja Tune and Seeper,
>for iPhone and iPad
>http://www.ninjajamm.com/
>
>
>
>Gemnotes-0.2: Live music notation for Pure Data, now with dynamics!
>http://sharktracks.co.uk/
>
>
>
>On Thursday, 6 February 2014, 8:11, Jonathan Wilkes wrote:
>
>
>>
>>
>>On 02/05/2014 08:56 PM, Simon Wise wrote:
>>> On 06/02/14 00:36, Dan Wilcox wrote:
Short answer: yes, it's
sufficient to provide the object files and
static
libs
As far as my understanding of GPL& LGPL goes, you do not need to
publish
your app sources when using LGPL libraries as the "Lesser" part of
the LGPL
allows for distribution and is not viral.
>>>
>>> yes, though 'viral' is a misleading term ... the GPL does not,
>>> cannot, change any license for any other code, it is not infectious.
>>>
>>> The GPL is certainly more restrictive (regarding re-distribution, not
>>> use, of the code covered) than for example the BSD or LGPL. It
>>> restricts the right to distribute/propagate as part of a larger work
>>> to works where the whole of the source code of that work is made
>>> available for reuse, modification and re-distribution either under the
>>> GPL or in any less restrictive way.
>>>
>>> In the second case the GPLed code would no longer be licensed for
>>> distribution (and would have to be replaced or dropped or a different
>>> license negotiated with its copyright owners) if the work as a whole
>>> was modified and distributed with a more restrictive license. Whether
>>> this is useful or not has been very widely debated.
>>
>>There are two debates.
>>
>>One is between devs who license their code with the GPL and devs who
>>license their code with 3-clause BSD. Both share what they make with
>>the
world. Both keep publicly auditable databases of the changes to the
>>software. Both encourage smart, safe ways to design and maintain
>>software and operating systems.
>>
>>BSD devs notice that when they share with GPL devs, the GPL devs say,
>>"Thanks." But when the BSD devs try to use what the GPL devs write they
>>have to fuss with the license. This is because the GPL essentially puts
>>the golden rule into the license, whereas the BSD devs have a minimal
>>license (probably as minimal as a license can be) and just follow the
>>golden rule as human beings.
>>
>>There are good reasons for both camps to do what they do, but it ends up
>>requiring the BSD folks to care more about licenses than they'd like--
>>their license is only 3 clauses,
after all! So the BSD camp complains
>>that when the GPL devs (like Linux Kernel devs) improve on code that was
>>originally BSD, it comes back to the BSD folks "infected" with the GPL
>>license which requires them to then care about licenses. This is where
>>the "viral" taunt comes from-- a genuine argument between two camps,
>>both sharing what they make with everyone else to encourage a free and
>>safe software ecosystem.
>>
>>Another debate is between any company that produces proprietary software
>>and a straw man in a corn field. Here "viral" is irrelevant because the
>>company isn't giving improvements back to the community. Unfortunately
>>this is probably what first pops to mind when people hear this
>>argument-- that, somehow, the GPL can
"infect" the business of selling a
>>product and make it impossible for a company to make money.
>>
>>But for better or for worse, we don't even need to consider minimal
>>moral principles. It's demonstrably dangerous to rely on software that
>>doesn't have a pubic codebase and revision history. (Unfortunately I
>>think it's for the better since most devs seem allergic to stating
>>minimal moral principles.)
>>
>>-Jonathan
>>
>>> The motivation for the GPL is stated in the license and the LGPL was
>>> written to cover some cases where the authors considered a less
>>> restrictive license useful.
>>>
>>>
>>> Simon
>>>
>>>
___
>>> pd-l...@iem.at mailing list
>>> UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management ->
>>> http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>___
>>pd-l...@iem.at mailing list
>>UNSUBSCR
