[PD] software license for pd general patch?

Mathieu Bouchard matju at artengine.ca
Tue Jun 29 17:14:08 CEST 2010

On Tue, 29 Jun 2010, Roman Haefeli wrote:

> b) A Pd patch is not easily turned into closed-source for technical
> reasons.

If you start from the Open-Source Definition and Free Software Definition, 
you will find that it's easy to step outside of the definition and that it 
doesn't have that much to do with whether the source code is "readable" or 

A Pd Patch being readable is easy to turn into closed-source in legal 
ways : you just have to say « you don't have the right to distribute your 
modifications without our permission » and POOF!!, that's closed-source.

The Definitions above have been written by their respective organisms in 
order to peel off the layers of confusion between free-of-charge and 
freedom. It was about making a clear distinction between libre and 
almost-libre licenses of all kinds.

Compilation is not a form of encryption. What can be compiled can be 
decompiled, and while it's not the source anymore, it's a quite close 
relative of it, and what once was C code can be turned back into some 
similar C code. The main "encryption" being used, in practice, is the 
Optimiser... When you compile using gcc -O3, you get a much more 
complicated executable, which is also more distant from the source, than 
if you compile with gcc -O0.

  _ _ __ ___ _____ ________ _____________ _____________________ ...
| Mathieu Bouchard, Montréal, Québec. téléphone: +1.514.383.3801

More information about the Pd-list mailing list