Hello, I've been always aware that TetraProc (and Tetrafile, which is part of it) is GPL and I can certainly make the source code of my Android app TetraFile available. I just need to find the time to organize it, clean it and package it properly. It consists of two Eclipse projects, one with the Android Java frontend and another with the Tetrafile C++ NDK code with some minor modifications I did so I could interface more easily with the frontend.
Tetrafile depends on libsndfile which would have to be compiled separately for Android but I guess I can include the precompiled library with the Tetrafile NDK project. It took a bit of work to finally get libsndfile working on Android but Steven Yi (a well known Csound contributor) and I managed to get it done. The code for libsndfile is here: https://bitbucket.org/kunstmusik/libsndfile-android As for AmbiExplorer, I didn't use any GPL code in it that would force me to release the source code and for now I would like to keep it closed. I will consider to release it in the near future. Best, Hector On Sun, Jan 26, 2014 at 9:48 AM, Richard Dobson <richarddob...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote: > On 26/01/2014 13:28, Stefan Schreiber wrote: > .. >> >> I am/was aware that Tetrafile is published under GPL license. >> >> But it depends maybe also how Tetrafile is included into the program? >> (Cos Dalvik-VM/Java and Android development tools are Apache license.) >> > > Not really. They declare themselves that the Apache license is compatible > with the GPL. Not all licences are. > > Cynics call the GPL a "polluting licence" as it requires all the code, > including that from elsewhere, to be under either the GPL or a compatible > one - at least, one that is not more restrictive than the GPL itself. So, > for example, as I understand it, GPL code can be freely combined with code > that is fully public domain (free and without any restrictions at all, > including closed commercial use etc; one example is the Synthesis Toolkit - > STK, and any amount of code under the BSD licence, which is essentially a > standard disclaimer of responsibility). So one thing you cannot do is mix > GPL and closed source and publish only the GPL parts. The point of the GPL > is not simply to licence individual source files, it is more to ensure any > user can build their own modified version of the application (which must > then also be published under the same terms). > > > .. >> >> See above. If you argument above is correct, things get quite difficult, >> because typical Linux toolkit licenses are GPL. (So and according to the >> argument above, you can't "separate" your code into GPLed and "other >> license"/closed sections. Even if you try hard to do so.) >> > > Nope, indeed you can't. There is some flexibility regarding libraries (which > could be under the LGPL; but under the strict proviso that the user can > relink with a different version of the LGPL library. Some of that depends in > the LGPL library being dynamically linked, so the user can simply relink the > binary with it. On the iPhone no dynamic libraries are allowed, so > everything has to be statically linked, which means in turn that even if it > is an LGPL library, everything must be made available. If Tetrafile is GPL, > it cannot be treated as LGPL, and all the sources of any application using > it needs to be available under that licence. > > > Copyright holders of GPLed software can of course offer alternative non-free > licences if they choosee to. The classic example is FFTW, which is free > under the GPL, but is also licensed commercially (e.g. for Matlab). I don't > think that licence is particularly cheap though! > > Richard Dobson > > > > _______________________________________________ > Sursound mailing list > Sursound@music.vt.edu > https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound _______________________________________________ Sursound mailing list Sursound@music.vt.edu https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound
