[PD] a little ot: creative commons
IOhannes m zmoelnig
zmoelnig at iem.at
Wed Jun 21 13:01:32 CEST 2006
Tim Blechmann wrote:
> On Wed, 2006-06-21 at 12:01 +0200, IOhannes m zmoelnig wrote:
>>> what if, when you share a patch and give a dummy-[expr] with it and
>> you
>>> tell explicitly not to use the 'original' [expr], that comes with
>>> millers pd, and people do substitute it by themselves?
>> if your patch is released under a GPL-incompatible license, then the
>> users who substitute your [expr] with the GPL'ed one, might be
>> violating
>> the GPL (probably only, if they distribute your patch "linked" with
>> GPL
>> [expr]);
>> your patch should not be affected by whatever license shahrokh's
>> [expr]
>> is released under.
>
> well, my interpretation of:
> http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#IfInterpreterIsGPL
> is the following:
>
> if expr would be part of the pd language, patches wouldn't have to be
> gpl-compatible licensed ...
> the question is, _is_ expr part of the pd language? as there is no
> language specification it is not clear ...
since [expr] is not part of pd itself, how should it be part of the
language?
i think the number of objects that are really part of the Pd-language
(this is: they are "keywords") is rather small.
i think that most objects that are built-ins are not to be seen as "part
of the language" but part of the default "object library" that comes
with pd.
>
> otoh, it's also possible to run gpl'ed programs with a proprietary
> interpreter like max/msp
> (http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#TOCInterpreterIncompat)
>
and i am pretty sure that it is allowed to compile GPL'ed sources with
proprietary compilers (else we would have a problem), as well as run it
on proprietary operating systems and hardware.
mfg.sdr
IOhannes
More information about the Pd-list
mailing list