[PD] porting a Pd patch to Max license issues

[Bryan Jurish]

On 2012-03-16 05:58, Simon Wise wrote:
> But generally this is not how an end user runs a Max executable ... they
> do not have Max on their machine, the executable they receive includes
> all required to run it. There are no Max "system libraries" to call, and
> they do not have a "Max interpreter" on their system. 

No more does the usual windoof user have a Borland or VisualC compiler
installed, nonetheless it's totally legitimate (from the GPL side) to
compile GPL code with one of these closed-source, commercial software
packages and distribute the resulting executables, provided only that
the source code for the *program* remains under GPL -- the GPL doesn't
claim that because someone used Borland C to compile a GPL'd program and
shared the result that Borland C must be GPL: that would be absurd...
Such commercial C compilers also often include local utility libraries
with very lax redistribution conditions, so that their users can legally
do things like that.  The Max license might deal with compiled
executables differently or incompatibly; I don't know.

>>> p.s. I would be happy if it was.
> 
> I'd say, but I am not a lawyer, that it certainly is partly the case -
> GPLed libraries can't be part of standalone executables that are
> distributed to another party. 

... unless the "corresponding source" of those executables is itself
made available under the GPL... with which we're back to system libraries.

>> Sorry if that's bad news for you... as Stallman would very likely not
>> hesitate to point out, __any__ kind of restriction on what your users
>> can or cannot do with your software makes that software less free, and
>> is therefore generally a Bad Thing (at least for the FSF and those who
>> share its interests and goals).
> 
> Yes ... to _use_ for anything, by anybody, without restriction. But
> distribution of executables is very deliberately restricted (in a way I
> personally think is very appropriate), and must be accompanied with the
> full, properly licensable and reusable under GPL, code for the _whole_
> executable.

I agree -- in the case of C code it's pretty clear what is meant by
"library", "linking", "using", etc., and of course what sort of
creatures the "system libraries" are.  For other languages, those terms
get murky very quickly.  I still think that a system library /
interpreter / compiler exception might be made to apply, provided that
the package source remained GPL, without trying to infect Max; but it
seems to come down to a question of "linking" vs "interpreting/compiling".

> With this in mind the motivation to port to Max may evaporate.

Hmm... if we can keep up the debate on GPL arcana for another few
weeks, I'd say it almost certainly will ;-)

marmosets,
	Bryan

-- 
***************************************************

Bryan Jurish
Deutsches Textarchiv
Berlin-Brandenburgische Akademie der Wissenschaften

Jägerstr. 22/23
10117 Berlin

Tel.:      +49 (0)30 20370 539
E-Mail:    jurish at bbaw.de

***************************************************