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" pa
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
Ed, shortest answer: Don't use [expr] if your worried about this.
They don't like it, but we can still *technically* use LGPL code like [expr] by
providing the object files, which are of course useless to anyone who hasn't
jailbroken their device or paid the $100 iOS dev tithe. Lots of apps use
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.
From GPL vs LGPL:
> Th
On 05/02/14 21:55, Ed Kelly wrote:
Hi Dan, Miller et al.
I'm still somewhat confused about the LGPL issues with regarding apps.
Say I make an app that uses LibPd, and include an object or library that is
licensed with an LGPL license. Would I have to include all source code for
the app itself,
On 02/05/2014 11:55 AM, Ed Kelly wrote:
> Hi Dan, Miller et al.
>
> I'm still somewhat confused about the LGPL issues with regarding apps.
>
> Say I make an app that uses LibPd, and include an object or library that is
> licensed with an LGPL license. Would I have to include all source code for
Hi Dan, Miller et al.
I'm still somewhat confused about the LGPL issues with regarding apps.
Say I make an app that uses LibPd, and include an object or library that is
licensed with an LGPL license. Would I have to include all source code for the
app itself, or would it be sufficient to provid
Howdy Miller,
Sorry to bring this up again. The license in the expr source code headers has
been updated to LGPL, but I just noticed the post in vexp_if.c line 386 still
reads:
"expr, expr~, fexpr~ version %s under GNU General Public License ".
On Oct 5, 2013, at 8:53 PM, Dan Wilcox wrote:
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" wr
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 wrote:
> If your using libpd, you can simple remove the
Awesome, thank you. I'm glad we could figure it out. I remember checking a few
times and we discussed this in libpd. I kept getting confused by the different
licenses.
On Oct 6, 2013, at 3:55 AM, Miller Puckette wrote:
> OK... done and pushed to git repo.
>
> cheers
> M
>
> On Sat, Oct 05, 2
OK... done and pushed to git repo.
cheers
M
On Sat, Oct 05, 2013 at 12:18:23PM -0700, Miller Puckette wrote:
> Hmm... Looking back in the git repo i saw:
>
> commit 42f3e5f8dbc60ad644e9f8a1c5b61d1847e19470
> Author: Miller Puckette
> Date: Thu Nov 3 11:40:35 2011 -0700
>
> change expr~ s
: Saturday, October 05, 2013 1:42 AM
To: i go bananas
Cc: pd-list@iem.at List
Subject: Re: [PD] Legal restrictions for apps
Ok. I'll make a patch for it if no one else does ... maybe in a few days.
On Oct 5, 2013, at 1:41 PM, i go bananas
mailto:hard@gmail.com>> wrote:
just
Hmm... Looking back in the git repo i saw:
commit 42f3e5f8dbc60ad644e9f8a1c5b61d1847e19470
Author: Miller Puckette
Date: Thu Nov 3 11:40:35 2011 -0700
change expr~ source to LGPL license (with IRCAM"s permission :)
I had quite forgotten about this (and still can't remember this ever havin
-boun...@iem.at [pd-list-boun...@iem.at] on behalf of Dan Wilcox
[danomat...@gmail.com]
Sent: Saturday, October 05, 2013 1:42 AM
To: i go bananas
Cc: pd-list@iem.at List
Subject: Re: [PD] Legal restrictions for apps
Ok. I'll make a patch for it if no one else does ... maybe in a few days.
On
It's quite clear as I read a while ago:
http://multinc.com/2009/08/24/compatibility-between-the-iphone-app-store-and-the-lgpl/
> If you’re developing an iPhone application that you intend to submit to
> Apple’s App Store and you want to make use of a third-party’s software
> library that happen
thing is, we STILL don't know for sure if apple will accept LGPL. they
have not said yes or no on that issue.
If someone else wants to try contacting them, maybe something has changed
since last year...?
___
Pd-list@iem.at mailing list
UNSUBSCRIBE and a
just to clarify,
Shahrokh Yadegari, IRCAM, and the JMax developers, ALL agreed with the
switch to LGPL license.
so AFAIK, the 'GPL' claim in the source code is still there simply because
no-one has changed it.
On Sat, Oct 5, 2013 at 8:45 AM, Dan Wilcox wrote:
> Well, it seems like all the a
Ok. I'll make a patch for it if no one else does ... maybe in a few days.
On Oct 5, 2013, at 1:41 PM, i go bananas wrote:
> just to clarify,
>
> Shahrokh Yadegari, IRCAM, and the JMax developers, ALL agreed with the switch
> to LGPL license.
>
> so AFAIK, the 'GPL' claim in the source code i
Well, it seems like all the authors agree and there's already an LGPL license.
I only brought up all of this due to the inconsistency between whats actually
there in the source files. I'd love for that to just be changed and we all move
on. It's not like this is a huge patent / money maker thing
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.
!
pp
-Original Message-
From: pd-list-boun...@iem.at [mailto:pd-list-boun...@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 G
I need expr~ for my apps
-Original Message-
From: pd-list-boun...@iem.at [mailto:pd-list-boun...@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
>
> 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 shou
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
, modified, combined,
whatever, without restriction ... it only requires publishing the sources if you
distribute it.
On Oct 5, 2013, at 12:33 AM, pd-list-requ...@iem.at wrote:
From: "Pagano, Patrick"
Subject: Re: [PD] Legal restrictions for apps
Date: October 4, 2013 1:37:21 AM GMT+08:00
Subject: Re: [PD] Legal restrictions for apps
> Date: October 4, 2013 1:37:21 AM GMT+08:00
> To: Simon Wise
> Cc: pd-list
>
>
> 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&#x
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, ind
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 betw
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 Gene
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 ap
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
As
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"
mailto:hard@gmail.com>> wrote:
i spent quite a long time being
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 wrote:
> Ok, great. That's helpful everyone, thank you.
>
> --
> Tony Hillerson
>
> On Wednesday, October 2, 2013 at 18:35 PM, Dan Wilcox wrote
27;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 > (mailto:tony.hiller...@gmail.com)>
> > Subject: Re: [PD] Legal restrictions for apps
>
pd-list-requ...@iem.at> wrote:
From: Simon Wise mailto:simonzw...@gmail.com>>
Subject: Re: [PD] Legal restrictions for apps
Date: October 3, 2013 3:34:00 PM GMT+08:00
To: pd-list mailto:Pd-list@iem.at>>
But is expr part of libpd??
Simon
Dan Wilcox
@danomatika
danomatika.com
m: Simon Wise
> Subject: Re: [PD] Legal restrictions for apps
> Date: October 3, 2013 3:34:00 PM GMT+08:00
> To: pd-list
>
> But is expr part of libpd??
>
> Simon
Dan Wilcox
@danomatika
danomatika.com
robotcowboy.com
_
On 03/10/13 03:17, Tony Hillerson wrote:
I agree that it seems like there's there's no prohibition on distributing
LPGL objects
You must distribute them under the LGPL, and that requires making their source
code available, just like the GPL.
However LGPL programs/libraries can be linked to f
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 arbitr
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 wr
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
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 wrote:
> From: Tony Hillerson
> Subject: Re: [PD] Legal restrictions for apps
> Date: October 3, 2013 3:17:
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
On Wed, Oct 2, 2013 at 7:32 PM, 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
> av
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
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
46 matches
Mail list logo
