Hi Peter, On Wednesday 14 September 2011, Peter Hanappe wrote: > > Hello FluidSynth mailing list > > > It's been a very long time I've posted here (in fact I was no longer > registered to the mailing list)! It's nice to see that the FluidSynth > community is still alive and well and I'm sorry that I haven't been as > active in this community as I would have liked (work, family, ...). > > (For those who see my name for the first time, I initiated the > FluidSynth project, and, despite all the code changes over the years, > I believe I'm still one of the main code contributors.) > > Here is my opinion on the licensing of FluidSynth and creating > FluidSynth-based applications for "distribution-challenged platforms". > > In summary: > > 1) The LGPL is fine. > > 2) The battle for the tight control of software distribution channels > is not fine. > > 3) Developers that use FluidSynth for iOS Apps is fine for me, as long > as they respect their end of the LGPL. They must carry the risk that > Apple removes the App from its online store. > > > I do not have any objection to developers who make an iOS App that uses > FluidSynth and who respect the LGPL: they release modified code and the > linkable object files of their iOS App. > > I will not complain to Apple about the fact their App uses > LGPL'ed code. Why would I? These developers are doing the right thing. > Besides, FluidSynth can only gain by being in the App store. > > It is true that recompiling the App for Apple's iOS is complicated, > which makes the "freedom to help your neighbour" very small indeed. > Blame Apple, not the LGPL, and buy another device. > > But, because it is hard to recompile/redistribute Apps, should we > therefore not allow FluidSynth-based Apps in the store? That seems to > me like artificially limiting choice. Not my cake. I'll leave that to > Apple. > > If Apple rejects (L)GPL based software, too bad for them > and for their customers. The unfortunate side is that App developers > using FluidSynth risk wasting their time if Apple turns on them. That > is not my problem, however. > > Does that mean that we should opt for a less "restrictive" license? > Personally, I support Free Software and I started FluidSynth in the > Free Software spirit. I would therefore regret to see the license of > the project change. I see no reason why we should bend to Apple's terms > simply because they are popular these days. > > My suggestion: > > We keep the LGPL and we clearly state in the FAQ that: > 1) Modified code must be made available (LGPL), > 2) For statically-linked, closed applications, linkable object files > have to be provided, so that people can rebuild the application (LGPL), > 3) I won't complain to Apple, > 4) Apple's wrath is their problem, > 5) They should not make seem as if they wrote FluidSynth... > > This is a debate with many subtleties and I may have missed a few. > I'll continue to follow this discussion. > > > Cheers, > Peter
Thank you very much for participating in the discussion. I hope you don't get bored too soon. About your suggestion: I fully agree. No attached strings. Regards, Pedro _______________________________________________ fluid-dev mailing list fluid-dev@nongnu.org https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/fluid-dev
