[PD] Patch licensing was Re: 'pure' pd DSP abstractions wanted!

[Hans-Christoph Steiner]

On Mon, 20 Oct 2008, Jamie Bullock wrote:

> On Mon, 2008-10-20 at 01:22 -0400, Hans-Christoph Steiner wrote:
> <snip>
>> Actually any of the CC licenses are bad for software, and really in
>> general, IMHO.  They are not compatible with the Debian Free Software
>> Guidelines, and every single one has an really vague attribution
>> clause that should be avoided.
>
> OK, what software license would you recommend for someone who wants to
> place the 'share alike' restriction on their Pd patch? The GPL is really
> geared towards compiled languages, and a lot of the wording is
> irrelevant in the context of a Pd patch IMO.

I think the GPL is perfectly relevant here.  If you want people to 
distribute their changes, then the GPL will be totally effective for Pd 
patches.

>> If you want to know more, check out my essay Copyright Is For Copying
>> in the new book:
>>
>> http://goto10.org/flossart/
>
> Great! I just added it to my Amazon wishlist.

If you are impatient, you can start with this blog entry, which then got 
turned into that article, along with a bunch of research:

http://at.or.at/hans/blog/2007/01/14/problems-with-cc-attribution-clauses/

I should mention, mako hill writes quite a bit about this stuff too:

http://mako.cc/copyrighteous/20080221-00

.hc

>
> Jamie
>
>
> -- 
> www.postlude.co.uk
> http://www.linkedin.com/in/jamiebullock
>
> -- 
> www.postlude.co.uk
> http://www.linkedin.com/in/jamiebullock
>
>
>
> Birmingham City University is the new name unveiled for the former University of Central England in Birmingham
> For more information about the name change go to http://www.bcu.ac.uk/namechange/official_announcement.html
>

 	zen
 	   \
 	    \
 	     \