[PD] Percolate

Steffen stffn at dibidut.dk
Thu Mar 8 21:52:46 CET 2007

On 07/03/2007, at 15.42, Frank Barknecht wrote:

> Hallo,
> Ivica Ico Bukvic hat gesagt: // Ivica Ico Bukvic wrote:
>>> That's not the problem. The problem is, that the current Percolate
>>> license is not a free software license. Non-free licenses are
>>> incompatible with the GPL, which flext uses. By distributing a  
>>> version
>>> of Percolate externals using their current license built with
>>> GPL-flext you would be violating the GPL! So you are not allowed to
>>> distribute your flext-Percolate ATM.
>> Please pardon my ignorance, but will this be the case even if I  
>> distribute
>> the ported code as source-only (assuming that I get a permission  
>> to do so
>> from the original authors)?
> I'm not a lawyer, but as I understand it, source or binary doesn't
> matter: As long as you distribute a flext-external, source or binary,
> you have to distribute it as GPL. This is impossible without violating
> either the Percolate license or the GPL, because both are
> incompatible: the Percolate license isn't a free license.

Regarding Flext in general and this: http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl- 

Is Flext based externals, which need be GPL externals, violating the  
GPL when used as Max/MSP externals? If so, and if the GPL is not  
violated when using the Flext based externals with Pd, then it makes  
sense in my head to distinguish between binary and source wrt  
violation against the GPL. But Flext might have a clause that catches  
just that?

More information about the Pd-list mailing list