On Tue, Sep 13, 2011 at 9:17 PM, Matt Giuca wrote:
>> I wasn't suggesting that remaining LGPL would negatively impact
>> FluidSynth. I was simply trying to find a solution to the issue at
>> hand, since I've worked a lot with embedded systems and thought that
>> the discussion may have just been
> I wasn't suggesting that remaining LGPL would negatively impact
> FluidSynth. I was simply trying to find a solution to the issue at
> hand, since I've worked a lot with embedded systems and thought that
> the discussion may have just been about the "static library" issue. I
> probably should h
On Tue, Sep 13, 2011 at 8:49 PM, Matt Giuca wrote:
>
> Element:
>> For this reason I wouldn't even mind if FluidSynth became
>> BSD licensed, if it would help FluidSynth to continue to flourish as
>> it has.
>
> It sounds like you're saying "if we don't support iPhone, nobody will
> continue worki
Pedro:
> I find it disgusting the attitude of
> Rusty Russell regarding the Wesnoth game. I can understand his disagreement
> against selling the game in the App Store, but what bugs me a lot is the
> arrogance of thinking that his license interpretation is the only valid
> against the rest of the
On 09/13/2011 11:14 PM, Pedro Lopez-Cabanillas wrote:
On Tuesday 13 September 2011, you wrote:
it just takes one of all copyright
holders to raise a complaint to bring the app down. That includes all
copyright holders in the past which we know nothing about.
This actually comes down to another
Hello FluidSynth list,
Just wanted to chime in here, since I have been rather silent on the
subject. I have already discussed my own position with David and
Pedro, but it seems like a good moment to let the rest of the
community know it as well, seeing as how my name was mentioned.
My current pr
On Tuesday 13 September 2011, you wrote:
> it just takes one of all copyright
> holders to raise a complaint to bring the app down. That includes all
> copyright holders in the past which we know nothing about.
>
> This actually comes down to another question. Does the project need to
> protect
On Sep 13, 2011, at 3:58 AM, David Henningsson wrote:
There are two dimensions here. First, there is the issue of whether
we can take action against App Store, and that depends on how we
interpret the LGPL, and second, whether we actually proceed with
taking that action, which depends on o
I finally got around to looking at this issue (thought I'd take a
break from arguing about licensing and actually contribute!)
It turns out this issue is really easy to "fix", but much harder to
*really* fix. To elaborate:
1. To "fix" the issue, all I had to do was change fluid_midi so it
doesn't
On Tue, Sep 13, 2011 at 09:58:56AM +0200, David Henningsson wrote:
> For the first dimension, it is not obvious to me whether we can or
> not, but it seems likely, especially if we, as you say, "bend a
> little or force the letter". So the precondition for taking the app
> down seems to me to be fu
On 09/12/2011 11:38 PM, Pedro Lopez-Cabanillas wrote:
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
Hi,
It would seem that Mobile Apps are a different licensing ball game
that the GPL and LGPL simply can't deal with effectively. Creating an
Android app and uploading it to market.android.com also entails
agreeing to a license that it different to the GPL and so would also
'modify' the GPL terms t
> A BSD license is not equivalent to a liberal interpretation of the LGPL, that
> is: allowing the distribution of FluidSynth and derived works by any channel,
> including the App Store, with the conditions (required by the LGPL, not by the
> BSD license) that 1) when the source code is modified, i
13 matches
Mail list logo
