[PD] gpl vs creative commons

[Damian Stewart]

hey,

i've written some pd patches for an artist-in-residence working the 
Netherlands Media Art Institute Amsterdam (NIMK). NIMK are running 
something of an open-source-everything policy at the moment, so they want 
the patches released somehow.

there's two parts to the project, a text-parser (i recommend not doing 
text-parsing in Pd if you can help it, it hurts) and a sound-creation module.

the text-parsing part makes perfect sense to be released under the GPL to 
me, but the sound part is a little more unclear - perhaps Creative Commons 
makes more sense for a sound-making patch (despite CC's inherent problems..)

(i don't know - how do you license an interactive installation? is it 
software? is it music/media? what about a portable computing device that's 
processing incoming data in realtime to make sound?)

then there's the question of whether any and all Pd patches are 'derived 
works' (derived from Pd) or '[a combination of] two modules into one 
program' and therefore need to be GPL.

can anyone shed some light on this?

cheers
d
-- 
damian stewart | +351 967 797 263 | damian at frey.co.nz
frey | live art with machines | http://www.frey.co.nz