[PD] a little ot: creative commons

[yvan vander sanden]

Frank Barknecht wrote:

>
>I mean, if the interpreter is GPL and I'm not bound by its terms, then
>why is is, that if I'm using some GPL's extensions of that
>interpreter, that I'm now bound to the GPL?
>
>How comes, that my "just data" program now became more than "just
>data"? 
>
>I mean, I'm not opposed to using the GPL, as you all should know by
>now, but: I just don't get it!?
>  
>
Just my 2 cents...

I believe it is because of this kind of things that the LGPL came into 
existance. Let's forget about pd for a moment. Imagine you are a c 
programmer and you're writing software using the gcc compiler. The 
running version of your software does not use gcc anymore, so you're 
safe there. But in most cases you've used some libraries, and they get 
staticly or dynamicly linked. So you need them to run your software. If 
those libraries are GPL'd, your software MUST be GPL too!
That is why the LGPL is 'invented'. Placing the libraries in LGPL gives 
freedom to commercial vendors, to create and sell software that makes 
use of, for example, important linux libraries. In other words, the GPL 
does NOT give them the right to do so, only the LGPL does.
Back to PD now. Pd is an interpreter, not a compiler. But externals are 
like libraries. If everything is GPL, the answer is quite simple, i 
think. What you make with it must be released under GPL too. If the 
externals are LGPL, you can choose yourself.
Only one more problem: The gcc compiler itself could stay GPL because it 
is not needed when you use the program. That is different with pd. It 
means that everything made with pd must be GPL?? This is fortunately not 
true. There is an exception for interpreters. Our pd-patches are just 
data. It's like writing a book in open-office. It does not mean you have 
to release it under the GPL just because you used GPL software to write it.
But extensions are another thing. It's like placing a chapter from a 
gpl'd book in your own book. If you do so, your book must be gpl too.
If this is not wat we want, then i guess extensions should be released 
with LGPL, just like many libraries.

I'm not a real expert of course. But after several years of involvement 
with open source, this is what i think is how it works. And i think it 
makes sense that way.

Regards,

yvan vander sanden