[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