[PD-dev] removing non-free code from pure-data SVN

Roman Haefeli reduzent at gmail.com
Thu Dec 9 10:42:20 CET 2010


On Thu, 2010-12-09 at 10:08 +0100, Sergi Lario wrote:
> we hurry?
> 
> I think remove is not a solution although, if I'm not wrong,  it seems
> will happen in the near future like all the others external libraries.

What makes you think that? Are you confusing the Pure Data svn
repository and Pd-extended?

> The fact that it is a useful tool and consolidated should be enough to
> respect the work done (pd-extended integration too) and its authors.

How does that affect the decision whether it should stay in svn or not?
What are you trying to say?

> Everyone is free to be in accordance with the license, and then use it
> or not, keep or remove.

Exactly, this is still true if PiDiP is not included in the svn anymore.

> As has been said many times an informative text in its installation
> should be sufficient.

This sounds like we're talking about Pd-extended again. From what I can
tell, Hans prefers to keep Pd-extended free (as in free speech) and thus
cannot include the non-free PiDiP library. 
However, the initial question of this thread is actually, whether it
should be removed from the repository or not. As some already stated,
its license apparently violates the SourceForge rules. 

Personally, I don't have a strong opinion on the matter. I think it
would be good, if it could be just left there, assuming that it won't
affect the hosting of other code. If, however, this violations leads to
something like the shutdown of the whole Pd svn, I'd rather remove
PiDiP. Usually, though, there will be a removal request first, before
drastic measures are used. I hope this also is the case with SF
hosting. 

> Witches were burned centuries ago, now we don't need.

I don't don't understand this metaphor. Can you translate that to the
current case?

Roman





More information about the Pd-dev mailing list