[Top][All Lists]

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

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

From: Pedro Lopez-Cabanillas
Subject: Re: [fluid-dev] Another application using FluidSynth announced
Date: Sun, 11 Sep 2011 21:28:31 +0200
User-agent: KMail/1.13.5 (Linux/; KDE/4.4.4; i686; ; )

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 way to test your software on the
> > real thing before publishing? Is that a legitimate path for distributing
> > source code to e g FluidSynth?
>  From what I can understand the development tools are free to download 
> and use, but testing your software on the iPhone or iPad costs $99 per 
> year. [1] Interestingly enough, this is a relatively low fee compared to 
> buying an iPhone/iPad.

This is true, latest Xcode release is available for download in the Mac App 
Store at no charge:

Older releases where in the second DVD, named "Mac OS X Install Disc 2" 
distributed with the Macs, like mine. I've downloaded also some version from 
Apple as well, and I'm not a member of the iOS Developer Program.
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 restriction because a 
GPL interpretation would mean that developing GPL applications for Mac OSX 
would be forbidden as well.

> I'm assuming that this "testing" is not crippled in any way to make it 
> different from running the App Store distributed one.

The documentation says that testing an application in iOS devices requires a 
certificate signed by Apple, that is available only to the members of their 
club (paying $99 per year):

But there are alternatives: http://www.saurik.com/id/8

> > As for my own opinion, I tend to be pragmatic in the sense that I look
> > for practical possibilities rather than the letter of the law.
> Let me clarify this a bit. LGPL contains a lot of rules and regulations, 
> but let me point out the two types of freedom, that the end user is 
> given, and that are important to me:
> 1) Available source code. I e, if the developer fixes a bug in 
> FluidSynth and makes that version of FluidSynth publicly available, we 
> should be able to take that fix and incorporate it into the next 
> FluidSynth release, and release that version under LGPL.
> In this case, Rouet can fulfil that requirement by publishing their 
> FluidSynth source code changes, or publicly state that they haven't done 
> any changes.
> 2) Updating FluidSynth. If the end user finds a bug in FluidSynth by 
> playing around with "Slide control", he/she should be able to fix it and 
> run the fixed version on the same hardware. The question is if Apple 
> fulfils its part of this deal by the $99 developer program [1]. On one 
> hand, the program is widely available and relatively cheap, on the other 
> hand, it's still a cost, and Apple can probably choose to deny this 
> program on an individual basis. So I'm not really sure what to think 
> about it at this point.
> Anyway, Rouet can fulfil that requirement by publishing the entire 
> source code to "Slide control". I don't know if they can also choose to 
> supply some kind of linkable object code, that depends on what you can 
> and can't do with XCode.

No objection. I think that documenting a clarification about this 
interpretation of the license would be enough, not requiring a license 
addition explicitly accepting exceptions, or license changes.


reply via email to

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