[PD] a little ot: creative commons

[IOhannes m zmoelnig]

Frank Barknecht wrote:
> 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.

quoting myself:
<quote>
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.
</quote>

so i could answer your problem, if we could find a definition about 
which objects are part of the "language specification" and which objects 
are "other" objects.
i guess [trigger] could be seen as "language specification" object 
(lso), since it represents a core concept of how dataflow is handled 
within Pd
[readsf~] is probably one of the "other" objects.

most likely [+] would be an lso too.

so even in a GPL-Pd, your 1st patch would not need to be GPL'ed.

my conclusion of this is, that *if* Pd was GPL'ed, we would need to 
define the boundaries between these 2 sets of built-in objects.

since Pd is not GPL'ed, we can skip this and still be happy.


mfga.sdr.
IOhannes