[PD] gpl vs creative commons
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
.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