[PD] a little ot: creative commons

[IOhannes m zmoelnig]

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