[PD] a little ot: creative commons

[Frank Barknecht]

Hallo,
IOhannes m zmölnig hat gesagt: // IOhannes m zmölnig wrote:

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

Let me try to clarify my problem a bit. For that I assume, that not
only [expr] is GPL, but that Pd would be GPL, too (I know it isn't). 

Now as I understand the FSF, if I do a patch for such a GPL-Pd I'm not
bound by the GPL for my patch, because it's just data. Assume my patch
is this: 

 [+ 2]

No GPL required, even though my Pd is GPL. 

Now I do a second patch and use [expr]: 

 [+ 2]
 |
 [expr $f1 + 2]

I'm using an extension that is covered by the GPL. According to my
understanding of the FSF, *now* my patch has to be licensed
GPL-compatible, because [expr] is GPL. But in fact, in a GPL-Pd, [+ 2]
would be a GPL-object as well. Why is a simple extension more binding
license-wise than the interpreter itself, which offers the same kind
of objects? I can see absolutely no difference between [+ 2] and [expr
$f1 + 2] in a GPL'd Pd.

That about wraps up my problems with understanding the
interpreter-GPL.

> 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)

Good idea. IMO a patch is very similar to a Perl script, additionally
it can embed artwork like a sound sample in an array or a data
structure drawing or score. (A special case would be k_cext.)

Ciao
-- 
 Frank Barknecht                 _ ______footils.org_ __goto10.org__