[PD] Can you close source of Pd patches (for commercial development)?

[IOhannes m zmoelnig]

On 2016-05-10 17:19, IOhannes m zmölnig wrote:
> On 05/10/2016 04:38 PM, Roman Haefeli wrote:
> 
>>  * the GPL'd externals as binary with their source code and License
>>  * my closed-source patch
> 
> inal, but i sincerely hope that this is a violation of the GPL.
> (though i'm afraid that this is a bit fuzzy, and there might be some
> loopholes or even larger holes to allow this).

ah, here is a reference:
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#IfInterpreterIsGPL

which states very clearly, that the license of the interpreter (in our
case: Pd's BSD license) has no effect on the license of the programs
(your patch).
however, if your interpreted program (patch) uses bindings to other
facilities (an external) covered by the GPL, then your program must be
released in a GPL-compatible way.

fgmasdr
IOhannes

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 819 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://lists.puredata.info/pipermail/pd-list/attachments/20160511/45958115/attachment.sig>