[PD] a little ot: creative commons

[Frank Barknecht]

Hallo,
Thomas Grill hat gesagt: // Thomas Grill wrote:

> Marc Lavallée schrieb:
> >Le 15 Juin 2006 09:40, Frank Barknecht a écrit :
> >  
> >>There seems to be no consensus about wether a patch, that uses
> >>externals released under GPL, should have to be GPL, too. Personally I
> >>don't believe it has to be GPL, but I think, IOhannes once argued that
> >>it has to be GPL as well. (Which would mean, that all patches using
> >>[expr] would need to be GPL, btw.)
> >>    
> >
> >A patch is not a derived work, so it doesn't have to be GPL.
> >  
> I would be quite surprised if this is true. To my mind it's exactly the 
> same as using a code library with an API, which is where LGPL comes in.

Putting aside, that LGPL and GPL are different beasts, here's how I
see that using [expr] affects the licenses I can choose for my patch.
Assuming I wrote this interesting application: 

#N canvas 0 0 450 300 10;
#X obj 144 139 expr 1 + 1;

I might intend to use the GPL-external [expr] in line 2. I might also
intend to use an abstraction, that I happened to call "expr.pd" which
looks like this: 

#N canvas 0 0 450 300 10;
#X obj 152 171 \$1;
#X obj 152 196 \$2;
#X obj 183 170 \$3;
#X connect 0 0 1 0;
#X connect 2 0 1 1;

It behaves the same as if I'd used the GPL [expr] (minus some
in/outlets). 

Now would I be obliged to put my 2-line application under GPL, just
because it uses a name, for which there also is a GPL-external? In my
opinion: no. (In the light of the fact, that nameclashes still are a
daily business, it even would be crazy to require that using certains
identifiers would automatically make a patch need to follow the GPL.)

However of course as soon as I distribute a binary of the GPL-[expr]
or its help file I would need to do as GPL says, which is provide
sources for everything etc.

Pd itself is both a programming language and an implementation of this
language. To me using the language is like using The Gimp for painting
pictures: My pictures don't need to be released under GPL, even when
The Gimp is. However distributing (derived) versions of Gimp *would*
need to follow the GPL.

But IANAL etc.

Ciao
-- 
 Frank Barknecht                 _ ______footils.org_ __goto10.org__