[PD] gpl vs creative commons

Claude Heiland-Allen claudiusmaximus at goto10.org
Mon Jan 28 09:44:16 CET 2008

Damian Stewart wrote:
> 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.

No.  The GPL only applies when distributing compiled binaries, as far as 
I'm aware.

.pd files are as much derived from Pd as a .py file is derived from a 
Python interpreter or a binary from a compiler (a compiler is a tool for 
creating binaries, which are derived works of their source, not the 

Pd's linking is at runtime, you can distribute a collection containing 
GPL externals. and otherly licensed stuff, because they aren't linked 
together until you run it.

The output from a GPL program cannot be licenced (eg, it would be a 
nonsense for (LGPL) GCC to force all C programs it compiles to be 
(L)GPL).  What you can do is license a particular recording - I license 
my patches under GPL, and time-consuming renders under CC license (but 
anyone who  bothered to re-render could use the output as they wished, 
as far as I understand).

BTW, this is from my fuzzy understanding of GPL2, v3 might be different.

Also, Pd isn't GPL.


More information about the Pd-list mailing list