IOhannes m zmoelnig zmoelnig at iem.at
Wed Mar 28 14:25:07 CEST 2007

Chuckk Hubbard wrote:
> On 3/28/07, Chris McCormick <chris at mccormick.cx> wrote:
>> On Tue, Mar 27, 2007 at 08:37:46PM -0400, Chuckk Hubbard wrote:
>>> Was PD previously under GPL?
>> No.
> Frank explained to me that Pd-extended is under GPL.  I have to go
> back and revise the package I created, if only to add the Berkley
> license info.  I'm pretty sure I didn't actually use the executable
> that was with Pd-extended.
> So if version 0.5 is available under BSD license, and the author later
> decides to go GPL, could they replace vs 0.5 on sourceforge with an
> exact copy except with a different license.txt?  And if someone then
> downloaded that same software, aware that it was BSD, and violated GPL
> thinking it was still BSD...

once a package is released under a certain license (well, if the
packager has the right to release under this very license), everybody
who got hold of the package under this license can do whatever they want
according to the license they got.

so: if you release v0.5 under BSD-license but then change your mind and
replace the BSD-license with a GPL, the package would be double licensed:
anybody can chose which of the 2 licenses they want.
(deleting the version with the BSD-license from sourceforge does not
mean that the BSD-license does not apply to the package shipped with
that license anymore).

they cannot violate the GPL, as they have a package versioned under BSD.
(it's basically the same mechanism that chris has explained in this
earlier email)

> A moot point anyway.  I swear I looked once and saw GPL for Pd, but I
> guess it was Pd-extended.  

must have been.

the BSD license is so open that you can even distribute such software
under GPL (this is what pd-extended does).


More information about the Pd-list mailing list