[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: Mon, 12 Sep 2011 09:58:12 +0200
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:7.0) Gecko/20110906 Thunderbird/7.0

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, 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.

Do you consider the $99 fee part of the compiler in this case?

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

That link, as I understand it, is about jailbreaked devices (as it starts with saying that the iPhone dev team has changed the kernel).

For me, jailbreaked devices are out of the question - you can do anything with them anyway, and they are not guaranteed to be available to the people you make the binary available to.

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.

Note that the above is not a full interpretation of the license, I'm just pointing out what is important to me. There might be other problems with the App Store distribution channel, which are important to someone else of FluidSynth's copyright holders. (Especially taking into account the code already present when I got involved with the project.)

// David

reply via email to

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