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

[David Henningsson]

On 09/13/2011 11:14 PM, Pedro Lopez-Cabanillas wrote:
> On Tuesday 13 September 2011, you wrote:
> > it just takes one of all copyright
> > holders to raise a complaint to bring the app down. That includes all
> > copyright holders in the past which we know nothing about.
> >
> > This actually comes down to another question. Does the project need to
> > protect itself from that scenario? If so, we need to relicense
> > FluidSynth, e g under BSD or under GPL with Classpath exception. That is
> > done by asking the contributors we can get hold of to relicense, and
> > rewriting the code for people that refuse or that we can't get in
> > contact with.
> >
> > So which is worse? Relicensing and rewriting parts of FluidSynth, or
> > denying FluidSynth for iPhone/iPad users?

I should perhaps rephrase this as "App Store users" rather than 
"iPhone/iPad users". There's still Cydia. Not available to everyone 
perhaps, but that's Apple's fault.

> > If you ask me, I will personally not commit to doing the job of
> > contacting copyright holders and ripping out code that does not fulfil
> > the new decided license. I will, however, prefer to relicense my own
> > contributions if the option is to have my own code ripped out.

However should I ever feel forced to do such a choice, that would also 
demotivate me and is likely to decrease my willingness to contribute 
further to this project.

OTOH, there might be companies, with manpower, that might start to 
contribute to FluidSynth if it was possible to distribute it through the 
App Store.

> Just my last opinion about this matter. I find it disgusting the attitude of
> Rusty Russell regarding the Wesnoth game. I can understand his disagreement
> against selling the game in the App Store, but what bugs me a lot is the
> arrogance of thinking that his license interpretation is the only valid
> against the rest of the project. And he even recognizes, and even is proud,
> that his attitude is pure selfishness.

I wouldn't be so certain that he was the only one. Maybe he was just the 
only one who dared to voice that opinion, whereas the others feared 
exclusion and therefore remained silent. I don't know much about the 
Wesnoth community, but something must have gone wrong if this was 
discussed after the port was completed rather than before.

The FSF has problems with the App Store [1], people on this mailinglist 
have problems with it.

> And looks like there may be a similar risk over FluidSynth as well. I would
> prefer to have sorted this matter now.

Sorry, but that's impossible without contacting all Copyright holders of 
FluidSynth, asking them to relicense their contributions.

> So, anybody wants his code to be
> removed, if FluidSynth is used in applications published in the Apple store?

I've been listening to both sides of the argument here. And I've made up 
my mind.

It's obvious to me that we have two paths here, the App Store path that 
requires relicensing and possibly removal of some contributions, and the 
non App Store path (continuing with LGPL) that puts App Store 
applications at risk. There is no middle ground.

Should the project choose the App Store path, I'll relicense my code, 
but you'll have to continue without me. Should the project choose the 
non App Store path, I'll continue being a part of this project, however 
that is still not a guarantee from my side of a specific amount of time 
commitment to the project in the future.

// David

[1] 
http://www.fsf.org/blogs/licensing/more-about-the-app-store-gpl-enforcement 
- this is GPL but as I understand it the same would apply to LGPL, as 
the same section is there