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

IOhannes m zmoelnig zmoelnig at iem.at
Thu Dec 9 16:53:27 CET 2010


On 2010-12-09 16:32, Hans-Christoph Steiner wrote:
> 
> 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

again, i'd suggest to wait till sf takes action.

> - it cannot be legally distributed because the terms of each license are
> in conflict with each other (Yves' license vs GPL)

then we should not distribute it.

> - it cannot be included in Pd-extended, its GPLv3

i haven't checked closely, but i guess there are other parts of PdX that
would violate that as well.
i'm thinking of code that its GPLv2 without the "or any later version"
clause.

> 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.

but this is not really a problem of the files being hosted.
it is a problem, if you distribute these libraries and tell people they
are safe (and the code is GPLv3, or whatelse)

> 
> Yves has made his decision, and he said to remove his code
> (http://lists.puredata.info/pipermail/pd-list/2010-12/084998.html), so

i interprete his statement as "please remove pidip/unauthorized from
Pd-extended" and not as "please remove my code from sourceforge".
even if it was the latter i'd ignore it, as yves has full access to the
repository and can remove the code himself (which he did not do; instead
he did something else: he changed the license in the repository, which
(for me) implies that he still thinks the repository of some relevance)

> 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.

not at all.
if you want to fork unauthorized, then do a fork, and remove the
original code.
i'd suggest forking it under the name "authorized" :-)

fgmadsr
IOhannes




-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 3636 bytes
Desc: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
URL: <http://lists.puredata.info/pipermail/pd-dev/attachments/20101209/2bfe9915/attachment.bin>


More information about the Pd-dev mailing list