[PD] a little ot: creative commons
IOhannes m zmoelnig
zmoelnig at iem.at
Wed Jun 21 17:36:48 CEST 2006
Marc Lavallée wrote:
> Le 21 Juin 2006 09:55, Tim Blechmann a écrit :
>>> Just like a patch using [expr] does not contains a copy of [expr].
>> loading expr could be interpreted as binding to facilities:
>> http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#TOCIfInterpreterIsGPL
>
> But the binding occurs between [expr] and Pd, not between a patch using
no, the binding occurs between [expr] and the patch (both are run by Pd).
your argumentation would render GPL on any interpreted language
meaningless. however, fsf thinks (and i believe they have asked their
lawyers who probably know more about legal issues than me) that GPL is
applicable to interpreted languages (else all those quoted FAQ entries
would not make sense).
> [expr] and [expr]. A patch is a document; it can ask the original [expr] or
> a different [expr] to interpret "1+1".
the patch is also code (a .c file with c-code in it looks like a text
document; it _is_ a document (try opening it with notepad); but it is
code too)
if '(the patch) can ask the original [expr] or a different [expr] to
interpret "1+1"', then the patch has ceased to be a passive document and
*actively* links to a library (either this [expr] or another).
in this case, there is no doubt, that if the patch asks the GPL'ed
[expr] to interpret "1+1" it has to be GPL too.
however, usually the patch cannot decide which object it uses - that's
why we are discussing.
mfga.sdr.
IOhannes
More information about the Pd-list
mailing list