On Monday 12 September 2011, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 12, 2011 at 11:38:46PM +0200, Pedro Lopez-Cabanillas wrote:
> > Likewise, for me it is not only important the letter of the LGPL license,
but
> > the ethical principles inspiring the libre software movement. For
instance,
> > the
> For point 3, I think it fails because you can choose to distribute the
> modified source code outside App Store, and it'll be available to use for
> anyone who fulfils points 1. and 2.
That's a good point, but I think it's all about whether you're
distributing the binaries or the source. Remembe
On Mon, Sep 12, 2011 at 11:38:46PM +0200, Pedro Lopez-Cabanillas wrote:
> Likewise, for me it is not only important the letter of the LGPL license, but
> the ethical principles inspiring the libre software movement. For instance,
> the principle of no discrimination that is not part of the LGPL,
On Monday 12 September 2011, David Henningsson wrote:
> On 09/11/2011 09:28 PM, Pedro Lopez-Cabanillas wrote:
> > On Sunday 11 September 2011, David Henningsson wrote:
> >> On 09/07/2011 10:38 PM, David Henningsson wrote:
> >>> I'm unfamiliar with exactly how development for iPhone works here. If I
It looks like in order to use the AdHoc install system you need to
collect the appropriate devices id’s and then create the appropriate
provisioning profiles for your 100 Ad hoc users. So a recompile could
conceivably be a different 100 users. I have not done this myself, but
I do have a Mac Mini w
On 09/12/2011 02:05 PM, Matt Giuca wrote:
To summarise, any iOS app, even if its source code is fully disclosed,
cannot possibly grant all of its end users the ability to reproduce
the executable, for three reasons:
1. It requires a Mac, which is not the same operating system as iOS,
2. It requir
On 09/12/2011 02:23 PM, Graham Goode wrote:
Hi,
Just one point of correction.
The iOS SDK can be downloaded for free. The app that you compile with
it can be uploaded to your personal iOS device and 99 others, for
free. It is only when distributing the binary (via the App Store) that
you need t
OK thanks for correcting, Graham,
> So point 2 is false and point 3 is true if ONLY using the App Store...
> I can get the sourcecode, compile it myself in my OSX environment and
> connect and upload the app to 100 iOS devices...
Well we are assuming use of the App Store (jailbroken devices are l
Hi,
Just one point of correction.
The iOS SDK can be downloaded for free. The app that you compile with
it can be uploaded to your personal iOS device and 99 others, for
free. It is only when distributing the binary (via the App Store) that
you need to pay.
Quote from iOS SDK Wiki article (http:
Pedro:
> Yes, you can release a GPL application that requires proprietary operating
> systems and compilers. Nothing is said about money, though.
Yes, you can release a (L)GPL application that requires proprietary
operating systems and compilers. That is why it is valid to release
FluidSynth for W
On 09/11/2011 09:28 PM, Pedro Lopez-Cabanillas wrote:
On Sunday 11 September 2011, David Henningsson wrote:
On 09/07/2011 10:38 PM, David Henningsson wrote:
I'm unfamiliar with exactly how development for iPhone works here. If I
develop for iPhone, how do I put my own software on there? I mean,
On Mon, Sep 12, 2011 at 09:30:50AM +0200, David Henningsson wrote:
> Maybe the section you quoted below is what makes the free-compiler
> question irrelevant then?
For xcode, which is clearly an "OS component", yes. But it's not
really the free-compiler question, just an interesting subset of
comp
On 09/11/2011 09:49 PM, Andrew Suffield wrote:
On Sun, Sep 11, 2011 at 09:28:31PM +0200, Pedro Lopez-Cabanillas wrote:
But as I've said, if the compiler and developer tools are "freeware"
or not is irrelevant from the license point of view, in my
opinion. These are the same tools used to build a
13 matches
Mail list logo
