On Sep 28, 2011, at 1:47 AM, Chris McCormick wrote:
> Hi Hans,
>
> On Tue, Sep 27, 2011 at 05:32:14PM -0400, Hans-Christoph Steiner
> wrote:
>>
>> On Sep 27, 2011, at 4:53 PM, Mathieu Bouchard wrote:
>>
>>> Le 2011-09-27 à 16:41:00, Hans-Christoph Steiner a écrit :
>>>
>>>> No one is talking about relicensing. BSD, MIT, Tcl, LGPL, etc. are
>>>> compatible with GPLv3, that means you can include code with those
>>>> licenses into a GPLv3 project and that is allowed. Then the whole
>>>> project is GPLv3.
>>>
>>> You mean that the whole project is GPLv3-compatible, or that it is
>>> GPLv3 ?
>>>
>>> If it is the latter, then when do the GPLv3's obligations ever apply
>>> to me when I do whatever with Pd-extended ?
>>
>>
>> I think you need to read up on how licenses work, its a bit off topic
>> here. But yes, Pd-extended is GPLv3 as a whole.
What I mean to say is that I don't have the time right know to explain
the details of how licensing works in regards to Pd-extended. But
there are many sources of that information.
> IANAL but I think Mathieu is correct. Software licenses apply to
> specific source code and binaries. I think you need to distinctly
> specify that the parts you have contributed (e.g. those patches in
> your git branch that you apply to Vanilla BSD as well as whatever
> TCL code you have added, as well as any externals you have written
> that aren't already licensed) are GPLv3.
>
> Hm, wait a second. Maybe the pd-extended binary can be licensed
> GPLv3 which might be what you mean.
That is what I mean. I also mean that if you use Pd-extended as a
whole, then it is GPLv3. The Pd-extended source code includes all of
the licenses files of the included subprojects, fulfilling the
requirements of BSD, MIT, etc.
.hc
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Making boring techno music is really easy with modern tools, but with
live coding, boring techno is much harder." - Chris McCormick