[PD] porting a Pd patch to Max license issues

[Lorenzo Sutton]

On 15/03/12 12:07, Marco Donnarumma wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 15, 2012 at 11:05 AM, Marco Donnarumma <devel at thesaddj.com 
> <mailto:devel at thesaddj.com>> wrote:
>
...
>
>     I found this FAQ:
>     ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>     If a library is released under the GPL (not the LGPL), does that
>     mean that any software which uses it has to be under the GPL or a
>     GPL-compatible license?
>
>     Yes, because the software as it is actually run includes the library.
>     ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
The problem, I think, is the definition of 'library' for Pd patches... 
Here I think the FAQ refers to something like, I create a cool C library 
for doing, say, FFT. It is GPL. If you make the CoolAudioEditor using 
that library for FFT then CoolAudioEditor will also have to be GPL or 
GPL-compatible.

I think MAX (and Pd) are more of a Runtime Environment, so the best 
translation I might think of for that FAQ is: say I make an external or 
abstraction (like many in Pd-extended) which is GPL and I use that in my 
patch(s), then my patch must be GPL too. This much more relevant to MAX, 
because there you can actualy make standalone binary versions of 
patches. In this way any patch built with XS, should it be ported, 
(including XS for MAX itself) should then be GPL, and thus even if I 
built a commercial, binary, i-XSense-4MAX-4live-pad-seven... I should 
also release the source code as GPL.

>     is this a show-stopper for porting of the XS into a proprietary
>     environment?
>
I don't think so, although it might be worth trying to convince people 
to give Pd a go. And if they really can't avoid using MAX use them 
together, say, with OSC etc.
> p.s. I would be happy if it was.
eh eh you want to get out of it with "vorrei ma non posso" :)

Lorenzo.