On 09/18/2011 06:55 PM, Pedro Lopez-Cabanillas wrote:
On Sunday 18 September 2011, Peter Hanappe wrote:
Second draft. I'd like an ok from both Pedro's and Peter before I put it
up as an "official project standpoint".
You've got my ok.
Cheers,
P
Mine too.
Glad we finally got to something
On Sunday 18 September 2011, Peter Hanappe wrote:
>
> > Second draft. I'd like an ok from both Pedro's and Peter before I put it
> > up as an "official project standpoint".
>
> You've got my ok.
>
> Cheers,
> P
Mine too.
Regards,
Pedro
___
fluid-dev
Second draft. I'd like an ok from both Pedro's and Peter before I put it
up as an "official project standpoint".
You've got my ok.
Cheers,
P
// David
___
fluid-dev mailing list
fluid-dev@nongnu.org
https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/flui
On 09/15/2011 09:12 AM, Matt Giuca wrote:
Would the following text be suitable to put on the wiki, and
represent the sort-of consensus:
=== iOS and the App Store ===
It is questionable whether iOS and the App Store can fulfil the
requirements of the LGPL. From a long thread
On 09/15/2011 09:03 AM, David Henningsson wrote:
On 09/15/2011 05:52 AM, Matt Giuca wrote:
Note: I'm not trying to suggest taking action here. I think we've kind
of reached a consensus that the LGPL will remain on FluidSynth and the
developers won't actively pursue violations, but that perhaps t
I've been following along as well. My contributions are extremely tiny and
very recent as compared to others, but I'm fine with the statement as
defined previously as well.
Just to inject my opinion... I write software because it's what I love
doing, and it's even better working on a very fine pr
Hi all,
I've been following this complex debate, and everything eventually
became clear to me when Peter voiced his position.
So I agree to the following text, please put my name on the list as a
contributor to FluidSynth (mainly the sequencer).
Thank you
Le 15 sept. 11 à 18:04, Element G
On Thu, Sep 15, 2011 at 12:12 AM, Matt Giuca wrote:
>> Would the following text be suitable to put on the wiki, and represent the
>> sort-of consensus:
>>
>> === iOS and the App Store ===
>>
>> It is questionable whether iOS and the App Store can fulfil the
>> requirements of the LGPL. From a long
On 09/14/2011 03:41 PM, Pedro Lopez-Cabanillas wrote:
On Wednesday 14 September 2011, Graham Goode wrote:
I think my iPhone is going to be
jail broken very soon ;)
I don't have any iSomething yet, but I agree that if I get one some day, this
will be my first priority, as it "simply enables you
>
> Would the following text be suitable to put on the wiki, and represent the
> sort-of consensus:
>
=== iOS and the App Store ===
>
> It is questionable whether iOS and the App Store can fulfil the
> requirements of the LGPL. From a long thread on the fluid-dev mailinglist
> [insert link to archi
On 09/15/2011 05:52 AM, Matt Giuca wrote:
Note: I'm not trying to suggest taking action here. I think we've kind
of reached a consensus that the LGPL will remain on FluidSynth and the
developers won't actively pursue violations, but that perhaps there
will be a warning on the website. I'm just ma
> I get an iPhone, and somehow I purchase the Wesnoth game from the App Store
> paying $3.99, enjoying the experience (of playing, not paying). Some time
> after, I discover some rough edges in the game that I would like to soften,
> and have read that Wesnoth is released under the GPL, so I get th
On Wednesday 14 September 2011, Graham Goode wrote:
> I think my iPhone is going to be
> jail broken very soon ;)
I don't have any iSomething yet, but I agree that if I get one some day, this
will be my first priority, as it "simply enables you to do more with your
device, nothing is taken away"
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 t
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, f
Hi,
I just had a look at Cydia... I didn't know that Jailbreaking a device
was considered legal, but it is!
"July 2010, when the U.S. Copyright Office declared a Digital
Millennium Copyright Act exemption making jailbreaking the iPhone
legal"
Apple says that it voids the device warranty though..
On 09/14/2011 06:11 AM, Element Green wrote:
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 i
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
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
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
On Sunday 11 September 2011, 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
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 all Mac OSX
> applications; any legal restric
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, even
> > Apple would think there should be a wa
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, even
Apple would think there should be a way to test your software on the
real thing before publishing? Is th
On Wednesday 07 September 2011, David Henningsson wrote:
> We also don't know which version of FS they use (maybe 1.0.9, the last
> one not requiring glib?), so we don't even know who of us are copyright
> holders.
You may already know about my VMPK+FluidSynth project for Nokia N950 devices
[1]
> I don't agree. His interpretation of free software licenses is unacceptable
> for me, so please don't use FluidSynth
> Wiki to express that personal opinions in the name of the whole project team.
OK, I won't change anything.
___
fluid-dev mailing li
On Wednesday 07 September 2011, David Henningsson wrote:
> > 1. Display a link on the front page titled "Can I use FluidSynth in an
> > iOS app on Apple's App Store?" which links to the LicensingFAQ, and
> > 2. Update the LicensingFAQ with more information, going into details
> > about the incompat
>> You said that Xcode is free.
>
> I've said that it is "gratis". And that GCC, the compiler included is also
> free software.
Sorry. When I said "free" I meant "gratis".
> You are wrong with the assumption that free software implies "gratis" as well.
The "free as in freedom" of free software
On Thursday 08 September 2011, Matt Giuca wrote:
> You can download the Xcode package from Apple (containing GCC and other
> tools) to build Mac and iOS applications, and it doesn't cost money. Note
> that "gratis" is not required by the GPL, anyway.
>
> While it doesn't explicitly say "gratis",
> You are assuming too much here. We don't know under which license Rouet
> Production is going to release his product in October.
Hmm, I possibly side-tracked this thread a bit. In my post, I was
speaking generally about coming up with a consistent policy for this
sort of behaviour, not specific
On Wednesday 07 September 2011, David Henningsson wrote:
> On 09/07/2011 08:08 PM, Pedro Lopez-Cabanillas wrote:
> > On Wednesday 07 September 2011, Matt Giuca wrote:
> > [...]
> >> http://lwn.net/Articles/396535/
> >> In this situation, it was the Wesnoth team themselves that published
> >> the ga
On 09/07/2011 08:08 PM, Pedro Lopez-Cabanillas wrote:
On Wednesday 07 September 2011, Matt Giuca wrote:
[...]
http://lwn.net/Articles/396535/
In this situation, it was the Wesnoth team themselves that published
the game in the App Store (for a fee as well). Apparently the core
team were okay wit
On Wednesday 07 September 2011, Matt Giuca wrote:
[...]
> http://lwn.net/Articles/396535/
> In this situation, it was the Wesnoth team themselves that published
> the game in the App Store (for a fee as well). Apparently the core
> team were okay with it, but one of the contributors, Rusty Russell,
> I would agree that an official stance from the project would be a good
> thing. As it stands, we don't have a legal entity owning all the code, and
> I'm hesitant to try to assemble one given the difficulties collecting
> copyright assignments for both past and future contributors.
> Therefore, t
On 09/07/2011 03:21 AM, Matt Giuca wrote:
This issue has come up several times on the mailing list. It might be
helpful to have a statement on the FluidSynth trac page explaining the
project's position on use of the software in the Apple App Store, and
similar restricted environments.
There is a
This issue has come up several times on the mailing list. It might be
helpful to have a statement on the FluidSynth trac page explaining the
project's position on use of the software in the Apple App Store, and
similar restricted environments.
There is already an FAQ question about this:
http://so
I've just found this on YouTube. It is for iPad.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jJcRNr5pAKk
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dDkw7w1oJk8
http://www.rouetproduction.com
I wonder how are they going to manage the release in the AppStore respecting
the LGPL license terms. Anybody knows this people?
R
59 matches
Mail list logo
