[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [fluid-dev] Another application using FluidSynth announced

From: David Henningsson
Subject: Re: [fluid-dev] Another application using FluidSynth announced
Date: Wed, 07 Sep 2011 07:41:34 +0200
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:7.0) Gecko/20110828 Thunderbird/7.0

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 already an FAQ question about this:

but it isn't very prominently linked (I found it via searching the
mailing list archives), and it doesn't give a lot of information or

Would it be prudent to:
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 incompatibilities between the LGPL and App Store terms, and
highlighting the grey areas.

I would be happy to help draft such wording.

Feel free to update the wiki page with more information and links about the incompabilities.

At the end of the day, people are going to be releasing software into
the app store which uses FluidSynth,

So it seems.

and the project leaders will need
to decide what action to take.

Or rather, the copyright holders.

First, would you ignore it, or ask the
app author to cease and desist? Second, if they refuse, would you a)
report it to gpl-violations.org and let them deal with it, b) report
it to Apple and let them deal with it, c) I suppose, take them to
court (I doubt anybody wants to go that far). The FAQ could outline
the project's position on the matter (regardless of what the license
says, whether you are generally happy with people using FS in the App
Store, or whether this would be considered to be "not in the spirit"
of open source by the people who wrote FS).

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, there's no way we currently can speak for all copyright holders of the project.

I'm trying not to
influence that decision because I'm not actually a FS author.

On the contrary, as of 1.1.4 you are a copyright holder yourself. How do you feel about it?

And the other active contributors here, what stance of the project would make you more likely or unlikely to contribute to the project in the future?

// David

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]