Quantcast

status/consensus -- App Store release for iOS build

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
49 messages Options
123
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

status/consensus -- App Store release for iOS build

David Reeder



Hi SuperColliders--


I recently managed to build SC (v3.5) for iOS.  Running nicely courtesy
of Cydia, et al.

It would be nice if *anyone* -- without hackre knowledge of iOS -- could
quickly download and install a free SuperCollider app to their iOS device
from the Apple App Store.


I don't wish to open up old wounds, but am curious to check-in on the
state-of-the-art.  Clearly there are issues with the GPL (eg: VLC), but
it does not seem to be a guaranteed showstopper.

Open questions...

  . Do we know of any apps in the app store that are based on or
    contain SuperCollider?

  . Has anyone started the process of getting Apple App Store approval
    for a SuperCollider app?

A few apps that probably contain some version of SuperCollider include
a number from Nick Collins (BBCut, iGendyn, PhotoOSC) and (perhaps?)
Reactable.  There must be others?  What is the difference between these
and a release of SuperCollider using the bundled build guidance?
Perhaps the issue is more with regards to SC culture and community policy
vs. any particular technical difficulty?



If SuperCollider can be posted to the App Store, I suggest adding this
to the standard release cycle for major releases, starting with the last
stable release.  The point is not to have the latest and greatest version
available, but rather a complete and stable version that does the right
thing, most of the time.  Presumably the App Store would be periodically
updated, but always one revsion behind.


I'm eager to push this forward or contribute to any current effort if
help is needed.



david







_______________________________________________
sc-users mailing list

info (subscription, etc.): http://www.beast.bham.ac.uk/research/sc_mailing_lists.shtml
archive: http://www.listarc.bham.ac.uk/marchives/sc-users/
search: http://www.listarc.bham.ac.uk/lists/sc-users/search/
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: status/consensus -- App Store release for iOS build

nescivi
Hiho,

On Tuesday 23 October 2012 01:08:43 David Reeder wrote:

> Hi SuperColliders--
>
> I recently managed to build SC (v3.5) for iOS.  Running nicely courtesy
> of Cydia, et al.
>
> It would be nice if *anyone* -- without hackre knowledge of iOS -- could
> quickly download and install a free SuperCollider app to their iOS device
> from the Apple App Store.
>
> I don't wish to open up old wounds, but am curious to check-in on the
> state-of-the-art.  Clearly there are issues with the GPL (eg: VLC), but
> it does not seem to be a guaranteed showstopper.
>
> Open questions...
>
>   . Do we know of any apps in the app store that are based on or
>     contain SuperCollider?
>
>   . Has anyone started the process of getting Apple App Store approval
>     for a SuperCollider app?
>
> A few apps that probably contain some version of SuperCollider include
> a number from Nick Collins (BBCut, iGendyn, PhotoOSC) and (perhaps?)
> Reactable.  There must be others?  What is the difference between these
> and a release of SuperCollider using the bundled build guidance?
> Perhaps the issue is more with regards to SC culture and community policy
> vs. any particular technical difficulty?

I think one of the issues are that Apple doesn't want interpreted languages in
the AppStore.

Personally, I still have a problem with the additional restrictions that the
AppStore has, which is in conflict with the GPL.
I may be picky about this, but I am really concerned about where Apple is
currently taking computers right now, including the fact that they can
remotely remove an application from your computer.
I think it is more important to appeal massively to Apple to force them to
open up their AppStore for open source software and respect open source
licenses, rather than compromise the license by allowing it.

So, the GPL is not the showstopper... it's the AppStore license that is the
showstopper.

I wouldn't be using SuperCollider now if James hadn't decided for it to become
open source... and the language would not be what it has become now...
We should take efforts to keep it open source.

sincerely,
Marije

_______________________________________________
sc-users mailing list

info (subscription, etc.): http://www.beast.bham.ac.uk/research/sc_mailing_lists.shtml
archive: http://www.listarc.bham.ac.uk/marchives/sc-users/
search: http://www.listarc.bham.ac.uk/lists/sc-users/search/
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: status/consensus -- App Store release for iOS build

Nick Collins-2

>> A few apps that probably contain some version of SuperCollider include
>> a number from Nick Collins (BBCut, iGendyn, PhotoOSC)

Just to be clear, none of my apps use the SuperCollider engine or source code in any way. They are coded from scratch as sample by sample sound generation with RemoteIO.

The only exceptions: iGendyn does use the Gendy code from the UGens, but I wrote that in the first place, so can re-license. TOPLAPapp also has a relation to the Instruction UGen from the SLUGens, again written by myself originally (and open sourced anyway here: http://www.sussex.ac.uk/Users/nc81/code.html).

best,
Nick



_______________________________________________
sc-users mailing list

info (subscription, etc.): http://www.beast.bham.ac.uk/research/sc_mailing_lists.shtml
archive: http://www.listarc.bham.ac.uk/marchives/sc-users/
search: http://www.listarc.bham.ac.uk/lists/sc-users/search/
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: status/consensus -- App Store release for iOS build

thor-3
In reply to this post by nescivi

On 23 Oct 2012, at 08:19, nescivi wrote:

> I think one of the issues are that Apple doesn't want interpreted languages in
> the AppStore.

This is used to be true, but is not the case anymore. Or at least very blurry.
Examples are RJDJ (using pure data interpreted code) and Smule apps
(using the ChucK language). There are JavaScript and Lua based apps on
the AppStore.

It's the conflict between AppStore license and GPL that poses problems.

David when you write:

>  Clearly there are issues with the GPL (eg: VLC), but
> it does not seem to be a guaranteed showstopper.

do you have examples of GPL apps on the AppStore?

thor
_______________________________________________
sc-users mailing list

info (subscription, etc.): http://www.beast.bham.ac.uk/research/sc_mailing_lists.shtml
archive: http://www.listarc.bham.ac.uk/marchives/sc-users/
search: http://www.listarc.bham.ac.uk/lists/sc-users/search/
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: status/consensus -- App Store release for iOS build

felix-2
In reply to this post by nescivi

My guess is that most of the target audience for SC aren't app store fans either.  But that's just my guess and guesses need to be verified.

Personally I found all these apple daemons on my computer to be annoying and I kill them and remove them from launch if they misbehave and start to consume excessive CPU or lockup processors. Consequently the AppStore doesn't work anymore on my power book.  I could probably restart the daemon, but generally if a developer insists I use AppStore to install then I just don't bother to install that app.

Cranky me.



On Tue, Oct 23, 2012 at 9:19 AM, nescivi <[hidden email]> wrote:
Personally, I still have a problem with the additional restrictions that the
AppStore has, which is in conflict with the GPL.
I may be picky about this, but I am really concerned about where Apple is
currently taking computers right now, including the fact that they can
remotely remove an application from your computer.
I think it is more important to appeal massively to Apple to force them to
open up their AppStore for open source software and respect open source
licenses, rather than compromise the license by allowing it.

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: status/consensus -- App Store release for iOS build

ddw_music

On Oct 23, 2012 8:06 PM, "felix" <[hidden email]> wrote:
> Personally I found all these apple daemons on my computer to be annoying and I kill them and remove them from launch if they misbehave and start to consume excessive CPU or lockup processors.

Sounds like (another) Mac user about to switch to Linux *tee hee*

hjh

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: status/consensus -- App Store release for iOS build

Scott Wilson-3
In reply to this post by thor-3

On 23 Oct 2012, at 12:53, thor wrote:

>
> On 23 Oct 2012, at 08:19, nescivi wrote:
>
>> I think one of the issues are that Apple doesn't want interpreted languages in
>> the AppStore.
>
> This is used to be true, but is not the case anymore. Or at least very blurry.
> Examples are RJDJ (using pure data interpreted code) and Smule apps
> (using the ChucK language). There are JavaScript and Lua based apps on
> the AppStore.
>
> It's the conflict between AppStore license and GPL that poses problems.
>
>

The last story I heard about this was that the conflict took the form of a developer insisting that the AppStore distribute the source under the terms of the GPL, and that a link to the source in the app itself was not sufficient, since that source of the source (sorry...) could vanish and Apple could keep distributing (providing the app was not withdrawn I guess?) I think some people have mooted including the source within apps as a way around this.

For myself only, I wouldn't mind as long as the source is readily available (it's not much use on an iPhone anyway), but I understand if other contributors have strong feelings about this.

S.



_______________________________________________
sc-users mailing list

info (subscription, etc.): http://www.beast.bham.ac.uk/research/sc_mailing_lists.shtml
archive: http://www.listarc.bham.ac.uk/marchives/sc-users/
search: http://www.listarc.bham.ac.uk/lists/sc-users/search/
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: status/consensus -- App Store release for iOS build

John Schmitt
In reply to this post by felix-2
As I understood it the op was hinting at an IOS version of SC, not the regular app store.

As a disclaimer, I find the direction Apple is taking just as disturbing as maybe most of the target audience for SC.

That being said, I habe dreamed of building my my own foot controlled magic performance box running SC for many years and I'm frustrated that although there are now many alternative Linux platforms one could use (Rasberry Pie, Pandaboard, Beagleboard), as far as I know none of these seem to be ready for real time high definition audio I/O.

The iPod has been for many years. When I bought my iPod Touch there was no way to get Midi into it to control apps with a foot pedal. With the help of this list (mainly Axel Balley) I managed after a long struggle to get SC to run on the iPod only to find it didn't support CoreMidi when it finally arrived on IOS.

I don't know about the current state of SC on IOS and I haven't made any further attempts at  realizing my goal, out of frustration about the many obstacles and the utter lack of documentation of successful projects on the net.

An official (IOS) AppStore release of SC might spark my interest again, so +1000 to that.

To the op: Did you say there's a Cydia repository of SC now? Does this mean you don't have to build SC yourself? I'd be interested to know.

Cheers,
Axel



From: felix <[hidden email]>
To: [hidden email]
Sent: Tuesday, October 23, 2012 2:05 PM
Subject: Re: [sc-users] status/consensus -- App Store release for iOS build


My guess is that most of the target audience for SC aren't app store fans either.  But that's just my guess and guesses need to be verified.

Personally I found all these apple daemons on my computer to be annoying and I kill them and remove them from launch if they misbehave and start to consume excessive CPU or lockup processors. Consequently the AppStore doesn't work anymore on my power book.  I could probably restart the daemon, but generally if a developer insists I use AppStore to install then I just don't bother to install that app.

Cranky me.



On Tue, Oct 23, 2012 at 9:19 AM, nescivi <[hidden email]> wrote:
Personally, I still have a problem with the additional restrictions that the
AppStore has, which is in conflict with the GPL.
I may be picky about this, but I am really concerned about where Apple is
currently taking computers right now, including the fact that they can
remotely remove an application from your computer.
I think it is more important to appeal massively to Apple to force them to
open up their AppStore for open source software and respect open source
licenses, rather than compromise the license by allowing it.



Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: status/consensus -- App Store release for iOS build

pyramind
In reply to this post by Scott Wilson-3
As far as I know, another incompatibility between the AppStore and GPL is that, GPL disallows the distributer from putting restrictions on re-distributing the binary. Apple applies DRM magic on binaries, and you are not allowed to get them to your computer and redistribute them, so in that sense they are incompatible.

As far as SC goes, I opened up this discussion about a year (or two) ago; and the main consensus was that, some contributors to the project were against the idea ideologically (and I don't blame them for it in any way) and since they contribute to the project with it being GPL in mind I think their position is fair.

Some see open source only as a convenience thing, and others, in addition to that, also care about the political undertones of it (think BSD/MIT vs. GPL). Although I would REALLY LOVE to use the SC(synth) engine in my own apps (I have two sound apps in the AppStore so far, all prototyped in SC; so I had to write an inefficient scsynth-like engine from scratch with UGens and all, and I connect them to each other in C++ code, painful) I don't think it would be fair (or legal) to go through with putting it up there due to partial community pressure, if even at least one contributor to the SC project who commits code with GPL in mind has objections to it (for whatever reason).

Best,
Batuhan Bozkurt
/* http://www.earslap.com */




On Oct 23, 2012, at 4:03 PM, Scott Wilson wrote:

>
> On 23 Oct 2012, at 12:53, thor wrote:
>
>>
>> On 23 Oct 2012, at 08:19, nescivi wrote:
>>
>>> I think one of the issues are that Apple doesn't want interpreted languages in
>>> the AppStore.
>>
>> This is used to be true, but is not the case anymore. Or at least very blurry.
>> Examples are RJDJ (using pure data interpreted code) and Smule apps
>> (using the ChucK language). There are JavaScript and Lua based apps on
>> the AppStore.
>>
>> It's the conflict between AppStore license and GPL that poses problems.
>>
>>
>
> The last story I heard about this was that the conflict took the form of a developer insisting that the AppStore distribute the source under the terms of the GPL, and that a link to the source in the app itself was not sufficient, since that source of the source (sorry...) could vanish and Apple could keep distributing (providing the app was not withdrawn I guess?) I think some people have mooted including the source within apps as a way around this.
>
> For myself only, I wouldn't mind as long as the source is readily available (it's not much use on an iPhone anyway), but I understand if other contributors have strong feelings about this.
>
> S.
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> sc-users mailing list
>
> info (subscription, etc.): http://www.beast.bham.ac.uk/research/sc_mailing_lists.shtml
> archive: http://www.listarc.bham.ac.uk/marchives/sc-users/
> search: http://www.listarc.bham.ac.uk/lists/sc-users/search/


_______________________________________________
sc-users mailing list

info (subscription, etc.): http://www.beast.bham.ac.uk/research/sc_mailing_lists.shtml
archive: http://www.listarc.bham.ac.uk/marchives/sc-users/
search: http://www.listarc.bham.ac.uk/lists/sc-users/search/
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: status/consensus -- App Store release for iOS build

pete moss
In reply to this post by David Reeder
On 10/22/12 4:08 PM, David Reeder wrote:
> It would be nice if *anyone* -- without hackre knowledge of iOS -- could
> quickly download and install a free SuperCollider app to their iOS device
> from the Apple App Store.


i offered about a year ago to host just such a thing with my company
itunes dev account.  i own a company with josh parmenter (and others)
called rockmore technology, and we have an ios app store account.
definitely not gonna put the work in unless there is consensus, but it
would be cool to have the official ios build available for everyone.

contrary to some other posters here, i dont believe it is app store
licensing that stands in the way.  at the very minimum, you could create
and edit docs on the device, as apps with interpreters currently do.
the reason i dont want to do the work yet is i dont want that work to be
lost if someone complains to apple about it being GPL and asks them to
pull it.  plus i dont care to open my company up to legal problems if
there is any contention on the issue.



_______________________________________________
sc-users mailing list

info (subscription, etc.): http://www.beast.bham.ac.uk/research/sc_mailing_lists.shtml
archive: http://www.listarc.bham.ac.uk/marchives/sc-users/
search: http://www.listarc.bham.ac.uk/lists/sc-users/search/
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: status/consensus -- App Store release for iOS build

David Reeder
In reply to this post by Scott Wilson-3





thor <[hidden email]> writes on Tue, 23 Oct 2012 12:53:51 +0100:
.
. do you have examples of GPL apps on the AppStore?
.


Besides the drama with VLC, I don't know of other examples.





nescivi <[hidden email]> writes on Tue, 23 Oct 2012 09:19:54 +0200:
.
. Personally, I still have a problem with the additional restrictions that the
. AppStore has, which is in conflict with the GPL.


Scott Wilson <[hidden email]> writes on Tue, 23 Oct 2012 14:03:48 +0100:
.
. For myself only, I wouldn't mind as long as the source is readily
. available (it's not much use on an iPhone anyway), but I understand if
. other contributors have strong feelings about this.
.

Batuhan Bozkurt <[hidden email]> writes on Wed, 24 Oct 2012 00:41:54
 +0300:
.
. As far as I know, another incompatibility between the AppStore and GPL
. is that, GPL disallows the distributer from putting restrictions on
. re-distributing the binary. Apple applies DRM magic on binaries, and you
. are not allowed to get them to your computer and redistribute them, so
. in that sense they are incompatible.
.

. Some see open source only as a convenience thing, and others, in
. addition to that, also care about the political undertones of it (think


I think Batuhan's comment isolates the core issue.  Maybe Apple would
allow a GPL app, but their treatment of the submitted app would violate
the GPL.

I'm supportive of the radical thrust of the GPL.  It is one of the core
pillars of developer netizenship and constitutes a genuine lever for
social change.  It runs deep and I suspect its full story is yet untold.


Full discussion of licences, and new kinds of licenses is out of scope
for this list, though perhaps the application of such ideas could be
considered further.  The conflict between Apple and the GPL effectively
prevent SC from being available in a well-used market.  

Per Pete Moss' offer, if the technical hurdles are already overcome,
the details of making an app available simplify to community agreement.

Are there alternatives?  Could there be a "special build" of SC under
a modified license, with appropriatly limited support, expressly
focused on jumping through this hoop?  Or, could Apple be persuaded to
create a new category of support for GPL protected apps that is enforced
side-by-side with certain restrictions on marketing or commercial
development?

Just crazy ideas...




John Schmitt <[hidden email]> writes on Tue, 23 Oct 2012 06:11:13 -0700 (PD
T):
.
.   An official (IOS) AppStore release of SC might spark my interest again,
.   so +1000 to that.
.   To the op: Did you say there's a Cydia repository of SC now? Does this
.   mean you don't have to build SC yourself? I'd be interested to know.
.

Clearly the Cydia environment is different.  They would likely accept
a submission, then available to an audience larger than devoted
SuperColliders, but still far short of the mass Apple marketplace.

My build is here: http://davidreeder.info/sc-for-ios .  This is my first
build for this purpose... your milage may vary.





felix <[hidden email]> writes on Tue, 23 Oct 2012 14:05:15 +0200:
.
. My guess is that most of the target audience for SC aren't app store fans
. either.  But that's just my guess and guesses need to be verified.
.

I agree.  However, a node empowered with SC could be addressed in any
number of ways.  As I wander about in large metropolitan areas I see
only unrequited resources.  Clearly there are many pitfalls with the
power and accuracy of a mobile device, but one could compose accordingly.
Especially if the task is simplified by appropriate and effective tools
both within and supportive of SuperCollider.

A variation on the sound mob idea is to address an ad hoc network of
nodes as a group of available channels each accompanied by an approximate
assessment of location, capabilities and transience according to results
polled from hardware, os status and per expressions of user interest.
A macro version of supernova, if you will.




david






_______________________________________________
sc-users mailing list

info (subscription, etc.): http://www.beast.bham.ac.uk/research/sc_mailing_lists.shtml
archive: http://www.listarc.bham.ac.uk/marchives/sc-users/
search: http://www.listarc.bham.ac.uk/lists/sc-users/search/
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: status/consensus -- App Store release for iOS build

Scott Wilson-3

On 25 Oct 2012, at 06:20, David Reeder wrote:

I think Batuhan's comment isolates the core issue.  Maybe Apple would
allow a GPL app, but their treatment of the submitted app would violate
the GPL.

I'm supportive of the radical thrust of the GPL.  It is one of the core
pillars of developer netizenship and constitutes a genuine lever for
social change.  It runs deep and I suspect its full story is yet untold.


Full discussion of licences, and new kinds of licenses is out of scope
for this list, though perhaps the application of such ideas could be
considered further.  The conflict between Apple and the GPL effectively
prevent SC from being available in a well-used market.  

Per Pete Moss' offer, if the technical hurdles are already overcome,
the details of making an app available simplify to community agreement.

Are there alternatives?  Could there be a "special build" of SC under
a modified license, with appropriatly limited support, expressly
focused on jumping through this hoop?  Or, could Apple be persuaded to
create a new category of support for GPL protected apps that is enforced
side-by-side with certain restrictions on marketing or commercial
development?

Look, as I understand it, the only way this could possibly work would be if all contributors agreed to an iOS version under a dual license scheme, probably containing very carefully worded assurances about source availability, etc. This issue keeps coming up, and then rapidly descending back into the weeds, usually because of very general discussion of people's dislike of Apple and its policies (in no way saying that's unjustified).

Maybe it would be helpful if somebody actually proposed a license (probably very close to the GPL but maybe for example requiring the code be available from a public source at all times, rather than be distributed by Apple, ensuring it remains available to jail-broken devices, etc.) as then there could be a discussion about something concrete and specific, focussing on what people would consider acceptable requirements for the license. After all, the GPL doesn't stop people we dislike from using SC in unconscionable ways, perhaps for profit, as long as they meet the terms of the license. Licenses should be about permissions and principles, not individual licensees or distributors. So I think it might be more useful to focus on exactly what the license should do but can't that's presenting a problem, and then see if that can be accomplished in another way.

Even if that worked though, there would probably need to be some work done, as SC is now dependant on several other projects that involve copyright holders who are not sc developers, so it's not just the SC devs whose permission is needed. Boost has a fairly permissive license, and I think libsndfile is LGPL. Not sure what else there is to consider.

S.
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: status/consensus -- App Store release for iOS build

Richard Wentk
It could be more useful to turn sc into an embeddedable library for audio app development - rather like Peter Brinkman's libpd, which seems to have done good things for Pd rather than bad ones.

You could then use libsc as the basis for further projects, including - but not limited to - a native ide, and whatever standalones the app dev community felt like creating for iOS and/or Android.

You'd still have generality, and the appeal of a more powerful synth engine. But you wouldn't necessarily be forcing users to edit sc files on an iPhone or iPad screen - something which probably sounds more interesting in theory than it would be in practice.

Re: licensing, I find it weird that a license that is supposed to make software 'free' seems to be making it impossible to distribute that software through very popular channels.

In the general case, software is always more useful when users can get it and use it. So I'm not convinced there would be a showstopper downside to a more open (sic) licence.

Richard

On 25 Oct 2012, at 08:18, Scott Wilson wrote:

>
> On 25 Oct 2012, at 06:20, David Reeder wrote:
>>
>> I think Batuhan's comment isolates the core issue.  Maybe Apple would
>> allow a GPL app, but their treatment of the submitted app would violate
>> the GPL.
>>
>> I'm supportive of the radical thrust of the GPL.  It is one of the core
>> pillars of developer netizenship and constitutes a genuine lever for
>> social change.  It runs deep and I suspect its full story is yet untold.
>>
>>
>> Full discussion of licences, and new kinds of licenses is out of scope
>> for this list, though perhaps the application of such ideas could be
>> considered further.  The conflict between Apple and the GPL effectively
>> prevent SC from being available in a well-used market.  
>>
>> Per Pete Moss' offer, if the technical hurdles are already overcome,
>> the details of making an app available simplify to community agreement.
>>
>> Are there alternatives?  Could there be a "special build" of SC under
>> a modified license, with appropriatly limited support, expressly
>> focused on jumping through this hoop?  Or, could Apple be persuaded to
>> create a new category of support for GPL protected apps that is enforced
>> side-by-side with certain restrictions on marketing or commercial
>> development?
>
> Look, as I understand it, the only way this could possibly work would be if all contributors agreed to an iOS version under a dual license scheme, probably containing very carefully worded assurances about source availability, etc. This issue keeps coming up, and then rapidly descending back into the weeds, usually because of very general discussion of people's dislike of Apple and its policies (in no way saying that's unjustified).
>
> Maybe it would be helpful if somebody actually proposed a license (probably very close to the GPL but maybe for example requiring the code be available from a public source at all times, rather than be distributed by Apple, ensuring it remains available to jail-broken devices, etc.) as then there could be a discussion about something concrete and specific, focussing on what people would consider acceptable requirements for the license. After all, the GPL doesn't stop people we dislike from using SC in unconscionable ways, perhaps for profit, as long as they meet the terms of the license. Licenses should be about permissions and principles, not individual licensees or distributors. So I think it might be more useful to focus on exactly what the license should do but can't that's presenting a problem, and then see if that can be accomplished in another way.
>
> Even if that worked though, there would probably need to be some work done, as SC is now dependant on several other projects that involve copyright holders who are not sc developers, so it's not just the SC devs whose permission is needed. Boost has a fairly permissive license, and I think libsndfile is LGPL. Not sure what else there is to consider.
>
> S.


_______________________________________________
sc-users mailing list

info (subscription, etc.): http://www.beast.bham.ac.uk/research/sc_mailing_lists.shtml
archive: http://www.listarc.bham.ac.uk/marchives/sc-users/
search: http://www.listarc.bham.ac.uk/lists/sc-users/search/
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: status/consensus -- App Store release for iOS build

Glen Fraser
Good comparison.  Yes, it would be great to have something like a "libsc" to allow embedding SC's great audio synthesis (even a reasonable subset of the UGens) into mobile iApps, i.e. something with more permissive licensing that would keep Apple, and also commercial application developers, happy.  All the great IDE stuff, sclang, etc, could remain licensed as it currently is (GPL).  Just having such an engine would go a long way to making SC+iDevelopers happy.

Then one could design audio prototypes in one's favourite environment (SC), and not have the hellish task of trying to reimplement them in some other system for embedding.  I did this earlier this year, as an experiment -- designed a SynthDef in SC, ported it over to Pure Data (aargh)…and embedded libpd in my app so I could load the .pd file and trigger it.  I would have been much happier to be able to just load up the compiled SynthDef and instantiate it in an embedded libsc!

So, "me too" from me,
Glen.

On Oct 25, 2012, at 12:43 PM, Richard Wentk <[hidden email]> wrote:

> It could be more useful to turn sc into an embeddedable library for audio app development - rather like Peter Brinkman's libpd, which seems to have done good things for Pd rather than bad ones.
>
> You could then use libsc as the basis for further projects, including - but not limited to - a native ide, and whatever standalones the app dev community felt like creating for iOS and/or Android.
>
> You'd still have generality, and the appeal of a more powerful synth engine. But you wouldn't necessarily be forcing users to edit sc files on an iPhone or iPad screen - something which probably sounds more interesting in theory than it would be in practice.
>
> Re: licensing, I find it weird that a license that is supposed to make software 'free' seems to be making it impossible to distribute that software through very popular channels.
>
> In the general case, software is always more useful when users can get it and use it. So I'm not convinced there would be a showstopper downside to a more open (sic) licence.
>
> Richard
>
> On 25 Oct 2012, at 08:18, Scott Wilson wrote:
>
>>
>> On 25 Oct 2012, at 06:20, David Reeder wrote:
>>>
>>> I think Batuhan's comment isolates the core issue.  Maybe Apple would
>>> allow a GPL app, but their treatment of the submitted app would violate
>>> the GPL.
>>>
>>> I'm supportive of the radical thrust of the GPL.  It is one of the core
>>> pillars of developer netizenship and constitutes a genuine lever for
>>> social change.  It runs deep and I suspect its full story is yet untold.
>>>
>>>
>>> Full discussion of licences, and new kinds of licenses is out of scope
>>> for this list, though perhaps the application of such ideas could be
>>> considered further.  The conflict between Apple and the GPL effectively
>>> prevent SC from being available in a well-used market.  
>>>
>>> Per Pete Moss' offer, if the technical hurdles are already overcome,
>>> the details of making an app available simplify to community agreement.
>>>
>>> Are there alternatives?  Could there be a "special build" of SC under
>>> a modified license, with appropriatly limited support, expressly
>>> focused on jumping through this hoop?  Or, could Apple be persuaded to
>>> create a new category of support for GPL protected apps that is enforced
>>> side-by-side with certain restrictions on marketing or commercial
>>> development?
>>
>> Look, as I understand it, the only way this could possibly work would be if all contributors agreed to an iOS version under a dual license scheme, probably containing very carefully worded assurances about source availability, etc. This issue keeps coming up, and then rapidly descending back into the weeds, usually because of very general discussion of people's dislike of Apple and its policies (in no way saying that's unjustified).
>>
>> Maybe it would be helpful if somebody actually proposed a license (probably very close to the GPL but maybe for example requiring the code be available from a public source at all times, rather than be distributed by Apple, ensuring it remains available to jail-broken devices, etc.) as then there could be a discussion about something concrete and specific, focussing on what people would consider acceptable requirements for the license. After all, the GPL doesn't stop people we dislike from using SC in unconscionable ways, perhaps for profit, as long as they meet the terms of the license. Licenses should be about permissions and principles, not individual licensees or distributors. So I think it might be more useful to focus on exactly what the license should do but can't that's presenting a problem, and then see if that can be accomplished in another way.
>>
>> Even if that worked though, there would probably need to be some work done, as SC is now dependant on several other projects that involve copyright holders who are not sc developers, so it's not just the SC devs whose permission is needed. Boost has a fairly permissive license, and I think libsndfile is LGPL. Not sure what else there is to consider.
>>
>> S.
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> sc-users mailing list
>
> info (subscription, etc.): http://www.beast.bham.ac.uk/research/sc_mailing_lists.shtml
> archive: http://www.listarc.bham.ac.uk/marchives/sc-users/
> search: http://www.listarc.bham.ac.uk/lists/sc-users/search/


_______________________________________________
sc-users mailing list

info (subscription, etc.): http://www.beast.bham.ac.uk/research/sc_mailing_lists.shtml
archive: http://www.listarc.bham.ac.uk/marchives/sc-users/
search: http://www.listarc.bham.ac.uk/lists/sc-users/search/
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: status/consensus -- App Store release for iOS build

Tim Blechmann-2
In reply to this post by Richard Wentk
> Re: licensing, I find it weird that a license that is supposed to
> make software 'free' seems to be making it impossible to distribute
> that software through very popular channels.

this is more a problem of the popular distribution channels! use a
distribution channel like debian/apt and you won't have these problems!


> In the general case, software is always more useful when users can
> get it and use it. So I'm not convinced there would be a showstopper
> downside to a more open (sic) licence.

the idea of the GPL is not to ensure that everybody can use it, but to
ensure that code and ideas remain free ...

tim

_______________________________________________
sc-users mailing list

info (subscription, etc.): http://www.beast.bham.ac.uk/research/sc_mailing_lists.shtml
archive: http://www.listarc.bham.ac.uk/marchives/sc-users/
search: http://www.listarc.bham.ac.uk/lists/sc-users/search/
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: status/consensus -- App Store release for iOS build

Tim Blechmann-2
In reply to this post by Glen Fraser
> Good comparison.  Yes, it would be great to have something like a
> "libsc" to allow embedding SC's great audio synthesis (even a
> reasonable subset of the UGens) into mobile iApps, i.e. something
> with more permissive licensing that would keep Apple, and also
> commercial application developers, happy.  All the great IDE stuff,
> sclang, etc, could remain licensed as it currently is (GPL).  Just
> having such an engine would go a long way to making SC+iDevelopers
> happy.

no problem with embedding libscsynth ... just license your application
as gpl! the idea behind the gpl is that derivative works stay under the
same freedom as the shoulders that you stand on.

i must say, that i find it questionable that people ask to use gpl
licensed programs in commercial applications without playing by the
rules of it. personally, i prefer spending my free time working on code,
which ensures freedom of software, rather than having someone using my
stuff in commercial applications without allowing the same thing with
their code.

some of my boost (-licensed) code is used by rather questionable
companies like banks ... even got some questions from email addresses
that suggest a military background ... some of that code has been
sponsored by google's summer of code, so in a way, i was at least paid a
bit for the development, but hearing something like: oh, please
relicense your stuff under a permissive license, so that we can use it
in closed-source software makes me *really* angry! many other people
(including me) have spent many thousands of (unpaid) hours to get it to
the state where it is now.
i cannot comment about other people, but one of the reasons why i
contribute more to sc than i'd need to keep it in a good shape for my
own musical work, is to support the free software ...

several gpl projects allow commercial relicensing ... qt was gpl for a
long time, fftw still is ... the commercial licenses of qt used to be
quite expensive btw ... with supercollider this is a bit difficult, as
too many people have been involved. jmc has chosen gpl (and not lgpl)
for his own reasons ... impossible to relicense anything without his
permission ... i probably could not even relicense supernova, as it is
using the gpl-licensed headers of the plugin interface ...

iac, no problem to use any supercollider code in your program ... just
make sure to use a license which is gpl licensed!

best, tim


_______________________________________________
sc-users mailing list

info (subscription, etc.): http://www.beast.bham.ac.uk/research/sc_mailing_lists.shtml
archive: http://www.listarc.bham.ac.uk/marchives/sc-users/
search: http://www.listarc.bham.ac.uk/lists/sc-users/search/
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: status/consensus -- App Store release for iOS build

pyramind
> no problem with embedding libscsynth ... just license your application
> as gpl! the idea behind the gpl is that derivative works stay under the
> same freedom as the shoulders that you stand on.

The original problem is that even if you license your work as GPL and provide the source conveniently, for Apple stores, you'd still be in violation of the GPL (from http://www.fsf.org/blogs/licensing/more-about-the-app-store-gpl-enforcement ):

> Section 6 of GPLv2 says:
>
> Each time you redistribute the Program (or any work based on the Program), the recipient automatically receives a license from the original licensor to copy, distribute or modify the Program subject to these terms and conditions.You may not impose any further restrictions on the recipients' exercise of the rights granted herein.

> ---
> This last sentence is a crucial part of the strong copyleft in the GPL and AGPL: it prevents distributors from using separate legal agreements, like Terms of Service or NDAs, to take away the freedoms that the license is supposed to grant. This is the license condition that Apple is violating when it distributes GPL-covered software through the App Store.


Since AppStore makes you sign another TOS that impose further restrictions on the handling of the binary, either the author of the derivative work, or Apple (not sure which, really) violates the GPL by putting it up there.

Best,
Batuhan Bozkurt
/* http://www.earslap.com */
_______________________________________________
sc-users mailing list

info (subscription, etc.): http://www.beast.bham.ac.uk/research/sc_mailing_lists.shtml
archive: http://www.listarc.bham.ac.uk/marchives/sc-users/
search: http://www.listarc.bham.ac.uk/lists/sc-users/search/
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: status/consensus -- App Store release for iOS build

ddw_music
In reply to this post by Tim Blechmann-2

FWIW on this: over on Linux-audio-users, there's been some crowing about the fact that Android has a majority share of the worldwide mobile market. It's purely anecdotal, but I've been on the Guangzhou metro at some times when there were more Android things than i-things about. The equation "mobile = iOS" really doesn't hold so well outside the US.

It makes me wonder a bit, why the focus on a platform that shows no love for open-source licensing, when an alternative with more users is readily available? (Says James, while writing this on an Android phone -- using Swype, btw, which Apple won't let you have without jailbreaking.) Of course I know why: Because they're popular. But I guess I don't see so much of a problem if you have specialist needs, but you bought into a platform that tends strongly toward generic consumer needs (email, games, whatnot) if you then have to defy the rules to do anything interesting on that platform.

I admit I don't know the terms and conditions for releasing software in the Google Play store, but I bet they're somewhat less hostile than the (cr)@pp store.

My support of open source software is one of the reasons why iOS was not on the table at all when I stated looking at mobile thingybobs. I don't like Apple's direction there, and I voted with my money.

I don't think SC should change its licensing to kowtow to i-wotever.

hjh

PS What Tim said.

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: status/consensus -- App Store release for iOS build

Tim Blechmann-2
> I admit I don't know the terms and conditions for releasing software in the
> Google Play store, but I bet they're somewhat less hostile than the (cr)@pp
> store.

there are gpl-licensed apps in google play


_______________________________________________
sc-users mailing list

info (subscription, etc.): http://www.beast.bham.ac.uk/research/sc_mailing_lists.shtml
archive: http://www.listarc.bham.ac.uk/marchives/sc-users/
search: http://www.listarc.bham.ac.uk/lists/sc-users/search/
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: status/consensus -- App Store release for iOS build

tommaisey
Also, AFAIK you can install apps on Android that don't come from the Play market. You just need to change a system preference, no need to 'jailbreak'.


Tom Maisey

On Thursday, 25 October 2012 at 13:47, Tim Blechmann wrote:

I admit I don't know the terms and conditions for releasing software in the
Google Play store, but I bet they're somewhat less hostile than the (cr)@pp
store.

there are gpl-licensed apps in google play


_______________________________________________
sc-users mailing list


123
Loading...