[PD] a little ot: creative commons

[Cesare Marilungo]

IOhannes m zmoelnig wrote:

> 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
>
> _______________________________________________
> PD-list at iem.at mailing list
> UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> 
> http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
>
>
IMO, the biggest problem regarding these discussions about licenses,
intellectual property, copyright and so on is that it's impossible to
judge if a work is original. What if, for instance, I decide to write my
own [expr] implementation. The copyright would be mine and I could also
decide to use another kind of licence.

I bet that when comparing the source of my own implementation with the
original one they'll be so similar that there's no way to tell if I
copied the original source and maybe just changed the name of some vars
or if I started from scratch, finding my own way of doing the same thing.

This is why patents (especially software patents) are evil.

c.

-- 
www.cesaremarilungo.com