[PD] a little ot: creative commons

[Hans-Christoph Steiner]

On Jun 15, 2006, at 5:55 PM, Damian Stewart wrote:

> Marc Lavallée wrote:
>> 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.
>> For example, an image created with Gimp doesn't have to be GPL.
>
> yeah, but [expr] isn't like Gimp, it's more like a library. for  
> example if you were to take gimp and build some larger program  
> using it, then the larger program would have to be gpl. pd patches  
> are more like software objects than sound objects...
>
> hmm, although in that thinking [expr] is being used like a lib in  
> traditional software development; just using a gpl'd lib doesn't  
> mean that you have to gpl the thing that uses the lib - does it?

The GNU GPL requires software that links against GPL'ed libraries to  
GPL'ed also.  The LGPL does not.

.hc

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

                                               http://at.or.at/hans/