[PD-dev] License implications of GPL3
padawan12 at obiwannabe.co.uk
Tue Nov 28 16:53:15 CET 2006
Wow, there's a huge can-o-worms. I'm not going to touch the tin opener
other than to say it seems bad, but I don't really understand. From what
I remember of commercial law classes you just can't do that with a contract.
But then how does a "license" differ from a "contract"?
For me, I'm very torn over it. On the one hand, practically and realistically
I think that you have to either share and shut up or not share at all. In
other words it's improper to be adding arbitary personal whims to work you
publish and expect the world to sing along. On the other hand I'm so
emphatically opposed to crap like digital restrictions management that the
CC licenses for my music are decorated with extra clauses making the license
void if used on a DRM infected media or channel. Call me a hypocrite, you'd
be right, I really don't know how to defend my dualistic position.
On Tue, 28 Nov 2006 09:17:58 +0800
Chris McCormick <chris at mccormick.cx> wrote:
> Hey All,
> One interesting consequence of the GPL version 3 is that you are allowed
> to remove additional clauses from the license on a piece of software
> that violate the GPL 3. So for example, if a developer has released a Pd
> library under the GPL "version 2 or higher" but added their own clauses
> trying to prevent certain people from using their software in certain
> ways, under the GPL 3 you will be allowed to remove those additional
> clauses from the License.
> <http://fsfeurope.org/projects/gplv3/tokyo-rms-transcript> (Last
> paragraph in the section "License Compatability")
> I beleive that this is relevant to one, or maybe two libraries that are
> used with Puredata.
> chris at mccormick.cx
> PD-dev mailing list
> PD-dev at iem.at
More information about the Pd-dev