[PD] a little ot: creative commons

[IOhannes m zmölnig]

hi

Frank Barknecht wrote:
> Hallo,
> 
> What I don't understand at all about
> http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#IfInterpreterIsGPL is this: 
> 
> The FAQ-answer first states, that I'm not obliged to put the GPL or
> anything compatible on an interpreted program, even if the interpreter
> is GPL, because my interpreted program is "just data" to the
> interpreter.
> 
> But then later it says, that if I'm using some modules of that
> interpreted language, that are GPL, in my "just data"-program, I'm
> suddenly obliged to use GPL or compatible. 

i don't quite understand your problem (but probably i am oversimplifying 
things)

the "modules" in question are not extensions to the interpreter but 
extensions for the patch.

imo, an extension to pd itself (which will NOT influence the license of 
the patch, because of the "IfInterpreterIsGPL" issue), would for example 
be a plugin that would allow for spline patch chords. such a feature 
would add nothing to the functionality of the patch itself, though it 
might make patches prettier (or not;-)) and it might increase your 
productivity in general (e.g. when you created the patch).
however, the patch itself is not really touched by such an extension.

another example (this time from the real world) _might_ be the features 
added to core-pd in the pd-extended distribution: i am NOT talking about 
the added libraries! but about things like the libpath hack and the 
like. while these hacks might be GPL'ed, they would not affect a patch 
created with such a version of pd.

another example: if you were using a library which provides gui elements 
for pd (like iemgui, ...) and your patch is "artistic per se" (this is: 
the patch looks pretty enough to be considered artistic), then the 
artwork would not need to be covered by the GPL (like when you create an 
image with the gimp)
no i don't want to start a discussion about when a patch starts to be an 
artwork by itself nor about art at all.


> 
> 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?

because it is not an extension to the interpreter but to the program.

btw, as we all know, Pd is NOT released under GPL but under a "free to 
evil" :-) license. this license does not apply to patches as long as 
only the interpreter "Pd" is used. this license applies (imo) to patches 
as soon as you use Pd core objects that are not to be seen as "part of 
the language" (whatever these are); luckily Pd's licence is so free that 
you can as you like.

> 
> How comes, that my "just data" program now became more than "just
> data"? 

for the interpreter Pd, your patch is "just data", like C-code is "just 
data" for a compiler. it ceases to be "just data", when it is run (by 
the interpreter), because then it becomes instructions.


btw, [expr] is an interpreter by itself. the [expr]essions need not be 
covered by the GPL.
so if you have patented a new algorithm and want to put it into a 
pd-patch which is using [expr], you could write your algorithm as an 
[expr] expression without violating the GPL.

> 
> I mean, I'm not opposed to using the GPL, as you all should know by
> now, but: I just don't get it!?

i think it would be good, if we could ask a lawyer at FSF for a 
definitive answer. therefore we would need to set up a description of 
the problem to which we all agree (e.g. can a patch be considered a 
program at all)



mfg.asdr.
IOhannes