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

[Hans-Christoph Steiner]

First off, I need to say I think Yves' code is great and very useful,  
and he's doing important work that no one else is currently doing.   
This has nothing to do with that.  Yves changed his license to a non- 
free license, which he is free to do, but there are real effects to  
doing that:

- SourceForge does not allow non-free code
- it cannot be legally distributed because the terms of each license  
are in conflict with each other (Yves' license vs GPL)
- it cannot be included in Pd-extended, its GPLv3

Yves' license is in direct conflict with the GPL'ed code of others  
that is included in both pidip and unauthorized. So if you use it,  
either Yves or the other GPL'ed copyright holders can sue you for  
copyright violations.

Yves has made his decision, and he said to remove his code (http://lists.puredata.info/pipermail/pd-list/2010-12/084998.html 
), so now we need to make ours.  I'm not touching pidip anymore, so  
I'm fine with it staying in pure-data SVN or not.  unauthorized was  
GPL until a few days ago, so I think we should maintain a clean GPL  
fork in the pure-data SVN.  That means removing the non-free  
unauthorized.

.hc

On Dec 9, 2010, at 4:42 AM, Roman Haefeli wrote:

> 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
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Pd-dev mailing list
> Pd-dev at iem.at
> http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-dev



----------------------------------------------------------------------------

There is no way to peace, peace is the way.       -A.J. Muste