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

[Element Green]

On Tue, Sep 13, 2011 at 8:49 PM, Matt Giuca <address@hidden> 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 working on FluidSynth." I strongly hope that isn't the case
> (all software in the future runs only on Apple devices?)
>


Not at all.  I was referring to the moral of those involved.  I could
care less about Apple devices and the more I hear about their
policies, the more I dislike them.  It sounds like at least David
would be disheartened by a change of the license to favor being able
to use it on that OS, so that means a lot to me, since he is a very
significant part of FluidSynth development.


>> This to me seems like a larger
>> issue with the LGPL and Apple.  I feel that making an example of Apple
>> from the stance of the FluidSynth project is a wasted effort and could
>> very well negatively impact this project.  If anyone was to take up
>> arms for such a cause, it should be a larger coordinated effort in
>> order to be effective.
>
> I don't see this as "taking up arms" -- nobody is suggesting going to
> court, just that the project would officially look down on LGPL
> violations (it could even look the other way and do nothing about it).
> I doubt that remaining LGPL is going to negatively impact this
> project. You might as well say "All GPL projects switch to BSD now or
> face the wrath of Apple fans." It seems excessive to change the
> project license just to avoid "looking mean" when someone violates the
> current license. Does anybody have any other examples of this playing
> out, one way or the other, besides Wesnoth and VLC?
>


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 have just kept my mouth shut, since I don't actually
have the time to put into this discussion and haven't been keeping up
on it very well and I realize now, that the scope is larger than just
the "static library" case.


>> allowing FluidSynth to be used on platforms such as the
>> iPad, iPhone and other static compiled embedded environments
>
> I think that "other static compiled embedded environments"
> over-complicates this issue. The LGPL is not against static compiled
> embedded environments. It has a specific clause in there which
> supports static compiled code -- you just need to release object files
> for the proprietary code to allow it to be re-linked with a modified
> version of the library. This issue has come about specifically because
> Apple has decided to make it impossible to run or distribute software
> on their platform that is not signed by themselves, and also to impose
> additional license terms on all software that runs on the platform.
>

Ok ok ok ok.  I get that now..  What a bunch of bull $h*^.


>
> Anyway, as I said above, I would personally relicense my work under
> the BSD or sign copyright over to another holder, just because I don't
> want to be the "bad guy" / Rusty Russell. But I think that decision
> would be a mistake.
>
> Matt
>

Your feedback is appreciated, thanks for filling me in on some of the
details I missed.  I still feel that I would potentially re-licence my
contribution if that was decided upon, but it does indeed sound pretty
lame to me.  So I also wouldn't mind if either an official statement
was made, that FluidSynth should not be used on Apple's OSes so long
as those restrictions exist or some other clarification to aid those
who in the future consider using it for such purposes.  At any rate,
I'm going to step out of this discussion.  Please email me directly if
anyone wants any specific clarification from me.

Best regards,
Element