[PD] best licence for pd-patches?
danomatika at gmail.com
Mon Apr 24 07:29:19 CEST 2017
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.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Pd-list