[PD] gpl vs creative commons

Hans-Christoph Steiner hans at eds.org
Mon Jan 28 18:08:55 CET 2008

On Jan 28, 2008, at 3:45 AM, Frank Barknecht wrote:

> Hallo,
> Damian Stewart hat gesagt: // 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.
> Pd isn't GPL, so even if patches were derived from it, you'd be fine
> in that regard.

Most externals are GPL'ed (and therefore Pd-extended too), so there  
you have to watch.

As for a recommended license, you can use the GNU GPL as long as you  
can make a clear distinction what the "source code" is.   For a sound  
file, the Pd patch and the Audacity files could be the "source  
code".  If you like the ideas of the GNU GPL but don't want to worry  
about the source code definition, then the FSF (and I too ;)  
recommend the Free Art License.

Check the section "Licenses for Works Besides Software and  



I think that the attribution clauses in all Creative Commons licenses  
are problematic, just like the attribution clause in the original BSD  
license was problematic and since removed.  For more info on that,  
watch for the people.makeart book coming from goto10. :D



News is what people want to keep hidden and everything else is  
publicity.          - Bill Moyers

More information about the Pd-list mailing list