[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: Wed, 14 Sep 2011 20:55:52 +0200
User-agent: KMail/1.13.5 (Linux/; KDE/4.4.4; i686; ; )

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 that I haven't been as
> active in this community as I would have liked (work, family, ...).
> (For those who see my name for the first time, I initiated the
> FluidSynth project, and, despite all the code changes over the years,
> I believe I'm still one of the main code contributors.)
> Here is my opinion on the licensing of FluidSynth and creating
> FluidSynth-based applications for "distribution-challenged platforms".
> In summary:
> 1) The LGPL is fine.
> 2) The battle for the tight control of software distribution channels
> is not fine.
> 3) Developers that use FluidSynth for iOS Apps is fine for me, as long
> as they respect their end of the LGPL. They must carry the risk that
> Apple removes the App from its online store.
> I do not have any objection to developers who make an iOS App that uses
> FluidSynth and who respect the LGPL: they release modified code and the
> linkable object files of their iOS App.
> I will not complain to Apple about the fact their App uses
> LGPL'ed code. Why would I? These developers are doing the right thing.
> Besides, FluidSynth can only gain by being in the App store.
> It is true that recompiling the App for Apple's iOS is complicated,
> which makes the "freedom to help your neighbour" very small indeed.
> Blame Apple, not the LGPL, and buy another device.
> But, because it is hard to recompile/redistribute Apps, should we
> therefore not allow FluidSynth-based Apps in the store? That seems to
> me like artificially limiting choice. Not my cake. I'll leave that to
> Apple.
> If Apple rejects (L)GPL based software, too bad for them
> and for their customers. The unfortunate side is that App developers
> using FluidSynth risk wasting their time if Apple turns on them. That
> is not my problem, however.
> Does that mean that we should opt for a less "restrictive" license?
> Personally, I support Free Software and I started FluidSynth in the
> Free Software spirit. I would therefore regret to see the license of
> the project change. I see no reason why we should bend to Apple's terms
> simply because they are popular these days.
> My suggestion:
> We keep the LGPL and we clearly state in the FAQ that:
> 1) Modified code must be made available (LGPL),
> 2) For statically-linked, closed applications, linkable object files
> have to be provided, so that people can rebuild the application (LGPL),
> 3) I won't complain to Apple,
> 4) Apple's wrath is their problem,
> 5) They should not make seem as if they wrote FluidSynth...
> This is a debate with many subtleties and I may have missed a few.
> I'll continue to follow this discussion.
> Cheers,
> Peter

Thank you very much for participating in the discussion. I hope you don't get 
bored too soon.

About your suggestion: I fully agree. No attached strings.


reply via email to

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