First off, I need to say I think Yves' code is great and very useful, and he's doing important work that no one else is currently doing. This has nothing to do with that. Yves changed his license to a non- free license, which he is free to do, but there are real effects to doing that:
- SourceForge does not allow non-free code - it cannot be legally distributed because the terms of each license are in conflict with each other (Yves' license vs GPL) - it cannot be included in Pd-extended, its GPLv3
Yves' license is in direct conflict with the GPL'ed code of others that is included in both pidip and unauthorized. So if you use it, either Yves or the other GPL'ed copyright holders can sue you for copyright violations.
Yves has made his decision, and he said to remove his code (http://lists.puredata.info/pipermail/pd-list/2010-12/084998.html ), so now we need to make ours. I'm not touching pidip anymore, so I'm fine with it staying in pure-data SVN or not. unauthorized was GPL until a few days ago, so I think we should maintain a clean GPL fork in the pure-data SVN. That means removing the non-free unauthorized.
.hc
On Dec 9, 2010, at 4:42 AM, Roman Haefeli wrote:
On Thu, 2010-12-09 at 10:08 +0100, Sergi Lario wrote:
we hurry?
I think remove is not a solution although, if I'm not wrong, it seems will happen in the near future like all the others external libraries.
What makes you think that? Are you confusing the Pure Data svn repository and Pd-extended?
The fact that it is a useful tool and consolidated should be enough to respect the work done (pd-extended integration too) and its authors.
How does that affect the decision whether it should stay in svn or not? What are you trying to say?
Everyone is free to be in accordance with the license, and then use it or not, keep or remove.
Exactly, this is still true if PiDiP is not included in the svn anymore.
As has been said many times an informative text in its installation should be sufficient.
This sounds like we're talking about Pd-extended again. From what I can tell, Hans prefers to keep Pd-extended free (as in free speech) and thus cannot include the non-free PiDiP library. However, the initial question of this thread is actually, whether it should be removed from the repository or not. As some already stated, its license apparently violates the SourceForge rules.
Personally, I don't have a strong opinion on the matter. I think it would be good, if it could be just left there, assuming that it won't affect the hosting of other code. If, however, this violations leads to something like the shutdown of the whole Pd svn, I'd rather remove PiDiP. Usually, though, there will be a removal request first, before drastic measures are used. I hope this also is the case with SF hosting.
Witches were burned centuries ago, now we don't need.
I don't don't understand this metaphor. Can you translate that to the current case?
Roman
Pd-dev mailing list Pd-dev@iem.at http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-dev
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
There is no way to peace, peace is the way. -A.J. Muste