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

[Hans-Christoph Steiner]

On Thu, 2010-12-09 at 16:53 +0100, IOhannes m zmoelnig wrote:
> 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.

I have checked, quite a lot.  Please let me know if you find something
that is in Pd-extended that is not compatible with the 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.
> 
> 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)

He clearly says:
 "so yeh you can remove unauthorized and pidip from sourceforge"

> > 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" :-)

I don't want to do a fork at all.  I want there to continue to be a free
unauthorized.  It seems to me the obvious place for this free
unauthorized is right where the free unauthorized has always been: in
pure-data SVN.  Yves' said to remove his code, Yves' license is in
conflict with SourceForge, Yves' license is not legally distributable,
and the de facto status of the pure-data developers is that pure-data
SVN has only free code (I know of no other non-free code in the
pure-data SVN).

.hc