[PD] best licence for pd-patches?

[Dan Wilcox]

GPL patches *can* be used as they are not compiled into an application and can therefore be updated by the user, satisfying one aspect of the GPL. I handle this in PdParty by having the built in patches accessible by the user in the app’s Documents folder, so the user can modify them at will.

If you’re using a GPL patch as an abstraction, it’s *similar* to using a dynamic GPL library as far as I can tell. But I’m no lawyer...

> On Apr 23, 2017, at 7:09 PM, pd-list-request at lists.iem.at wrote:
> 
> From: Matt Davey <hard.off at gmail.com <mailto:hard.off at gmail.com>>
> Subject: Re: [PD] best licence for pd-patches?
> Date: April 23, 2017 at 6:46:00 AM MDT
> To: martin brinkmann <mnb at martin-brinkmann.de <mailto:mnb at martin-brinkmann.de>>
> Cc: "pd-list at lists.iem.at <mailto:pd-list at lists.iem.at>" <pd-list at lists.iem.at <mailto:pd-list at lists.iem.at>>
> 
> 
> i heard, and then read,  that GPL patches CAN be run in closed source systems running libpd, etc. 
> 
> it's just GPL externals that you can't use without sharing the code.  
> 
> There seems to be a difference in licensing laws between patches and externals, because externals need to be compiled into the binary, but patches are more like "media" which runs on top of that. 
> 
> I wish i could find the posts i read about that again....it did make it quite clear why there is that distinction. 

--------
Dan Wilcox
@danomatika <http://twitter.com/danomatika>
danomatika.com <http://danomatika.com/>
robotcowboy.com <http://robotcowboy.com/>



-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.puredata.info/pipermail/pd-list/attachments/20170423/4a4e6055/attachment.html>