Hello,
I am not a PD developer, but as (amateur) artist and (professional) software developer, I am very sensitive about copyrights and licences.
I am a fervent Free Software defender, and I want to accept all licences I have to respect for all software I use.
In my Linux distribution (Gentoo Linux), we have to explicitly list what licences we accept, and set its name in a list, after reading it.
So, I discover I have installed pd-extended without knowing that non-free or restrictive licences are used, which I would refuse (I don't like licences as PiDip, especially if it is derived from a GPL project but not respecting the GPL licence, for me it's like pirating software).
So, yes, please list ALL the licences which are included in PD/PD-extended, especially those that are not compatible with common Open Source / Free licences ! At least users need to know they use non-free parts of software, and use it being aware of it.
(I use proprietary software too, and I know its terms).
Kind regards, Xavier Miller.
Le 08/12/10 21:10, Hans-Christoph Steiner a écrit :
So we now have two non-free libraries included in the pure-data SVN: pidip and unauthorized. As far as I understand it, this is in violation of what SourceForge asks of projects, and also seems to me in violation of the developers on the pure-data SourceForge, since the rest of the code there uses free licenses (mostly GPL, BSD-like, and Tcl-like).
So the question is: should we remove pidip and unauthorized from the pure-data SVN?
.hc
News is what people want to keep hidden and everything else is publicity. - Bill Moyers
Pd-dev mailing list Pd-dev@iem.at http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-dev
On 2010-12-08 21:37, Xavier Miller wrote:
Hello, .
So, yes, please list ALL the licences which are included in PD/PD-extended, especially those that are not compatible with common Open Source / Free licences ! At least users need to know they use non-free parts of software, and use it being aware of it.
i head the impression, that we are not talking what is included in pd-extended here. instead we are talking about the source code hosted in the public "pure-data" repository at sourceforge. while Pd-extended includes most stuff from this repository and hardly anything else, the two are independent.
fgmasdr IOhannes
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.
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.
Everyone is free to be in accordance with the license, and then use it or not, keep or remove.
As has been said many times an informative text in its installation should be sufficient.
Witches were burned centuries ago, now we don't need.
Sergi.
[Santa] | \ [Laws] [Likifreaks]
On Thu, Dec 9, 2010 at 9:14 AM, IOhannes m zmoelnig zmoelnig@iem.at wrote:
On 2010-12-08 21:37, Xavier Miller wrote:
Hello, .
So, yes, please list ALL the licences which are included in PD/PD-extended, especially those that are not compatible with common Open Source / Free licences ! At least users need to know they use non-free parts of software, and use it being aware of it.
i head the impression, that we are not talking what is included in pd-extended here. instead we are talking about the source code hosted in the public "pure-data" repository at sourceforge. while Pd-extended includes most stuff from this repository and hardly anything else, the two are independent.
fgmasdr IOhannes
Pd-dev mailing list Pd-dev@iem.at http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-dev
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
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
On 2010-12-09 16:32, Hans-Christoph Steiner wrote:
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
again, i'd suggest to wait till sf takes action.
- it cannot be legally distributed because the terms of each license are
in conflict with each other (Yves' license vs GPL)
then we should not distribute it.
- it cannot be included in Pd-extended, its GPLv3
i haven't checked closely, but i guess there are other parts of PdX that would violate that as well. i'm thinking of code that its GPLv2 without the "or any later version" clause.
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.
but this is not really a problem of the files being hosted. it is a problem, if you distribute these libraries and tell people they are safe (and the code is GPLv3, or whatelse)
Yves has made his decision, and he said to remove his code (http://lists.puredata.info/pipermail/pd-list/2010-12/084998.html), so
i interprete his statement as "please remove pidip/unauthorized from Pd-extended" and not as "please remove my code from sourceforge". even if it was the latter i'd ignore it, as yves has full access to the repository and can remove the code himself (which he did not do; instead he did something else: he changed the license in the repository, which (for me) implies that he still thinks the repository of some relevance)
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.
not at all. if you want to fork unauthorized, then do a fork, and remove the original code. i'd suggest forking it under the name "authorized" :-)
fgmadsr IOhannes
On Thu, 2010-12-09 at 16:53 +0100, IOhannes m zmoelnig wrote:
On 2010-12-09 16:32, Hans-Christoph Steiner wrote:
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
again, i'd suggest to wait till sf takes action.
- it cannot be legally distributed because the terms of each license are
in conflict with each other (Yves' license vs GPL)
then we should not distribute it.
- it cannot be included in Pd-extended, its GPLv3
i haven't checked closely, but i guess there are other parts of PdX that would violate that as well. i'm thinking of code that its GPLv2 without the "or any later version" clause.
I have checked, quite a lot. Please let me know if you find something that is in Pd-extended that is not compatible with the 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.
but this is not really a problem of the files being hosted. it is a problem, if you distribute these libraries and tell people they are safe (and the code is GPLv3, or whatelse)
Yves has made his decision, and he said to remove his code (http://lists.puredata.info/pipermail/pd-list/2010-12/084998.html), so
i interprete his statement as "please remove pidip/unauthorized from Pd-extended" and not as "please remove my code from sourceforge". even if it was the latter i'd ignore it, as yves has full access to the repository and can remove the code himself (which he did not do; instead he did something else: he changed the license in the repository, which (for me) implies that he still thinks the repository of some relevance)
He clearly says: "so yeh you can remove unauthorized and pidip from sourceforge"
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.
not at all. if you want to fork unauthorized, then do a fork, and remove the original code. i'd suggest forking it under the name "authorized" :-)
I don't want to do a fork at all. I want there to continue to be a free unauthorized. It seems to me the obvious place for this free unauthorized is right where the free unauthorized has always been: in pure-data SVN. Yves' said to remove his code, Yves' license is in conflict with SourceForge, Yves' license is not legally distributable, and the de facto status of the pure-data developers is that pure-data SVN has only free code (I know of no other non-free code in the pure-data SVN).
.hc
-
Hans-Christoph Steiner -
IOhannes m zmoelnig -
Roman Haefeli -
Sergi Lario -
Xavier Miller