[PD] a little ot: creative commons

[Damian Stewart]

Marc Lavallée wrote:
> Le 15 Juin 2006 09:40, Frank Barknecht a écrit :
>> There seems to be no consensus about wether a patch, that uses
>> externals released under GPL, should have to be GPL, too. Personally I
>> don't believe it has to be GPL, but I think, IOhannes once argued that
>> it has to be GPL as well. (Which would mean, that all patches using
>> [expr] would need to be GPL, btw.)
> 
> A patch is not a derived work, so it doesn't have to be GPL.
> For example, an image created with Gimp doesn't have to be GPL.

yeah, but [expr] isn't like Gimp, it's more like a library. for example 
if you were to take gimp and build some larger program using it, then 
the larger program would have to be gpl. pd patches are more like 
software objects than sound objects...

hmm, although in that thinking [expr] is being used like a lib in 
traditional software development; just using a gpl'd lib doesn't mean 
that you have to gpl the thing that uses the lib - does it?

-- 
f r e y
live music with computers
http://www.frey.co.nz