On Oct 12, 2011, at 5:42 PM, Jonathan Wilkes wrote:
----- Original Message -----
From: Hans-Christoph Steiner hans@at.or.at To: Mathieu Bouchard matju@artengine.ca Cc: Pd List pd-list@iem.kug.ac.at Sent: Wednesday, October 12, 2011 4:00 PM Subject: Re: [PD] pd-extended license WAS: Keyboard shortcuts for
"nudge", "done editing"On Oct 6, 2011, at 5:58 PM, Mathieu Bouchard wrote:
Le 2011-09-28 à 10:35:00, Hans-Christoph Steiner a écrit :
In the case of a GPL project including a BSD code, there is not a
separate license. Only the copyright holder can change the
license. It is just that the BSD license allows you to add additional restrictions.
The GPL adds one restriction: whenever you give someone the software, you have
to also give them the source code.GPL also adds the restriction of not adding any additional
restrictions,and that's a restriction by itself (I'm not saying that it's good or bad).
It can also be counted as several additional restrictions,
depending on theway one reads it.
So if you were going to include Pd-extended in your OS as a
whole, youhave to treat all the code as GPLv3. list-abs is a library
included in Pd-extended. It is released under a BSD license. If you download
list-abs by itself and package that, then it is not Pd-extended. So its BSD.If someone includes Pd-extended as a whole in their OS, and modify
BSDexternals, while keeping them bundled with the rest of Pd-extended,
they don't have to distribute the source to those modifications, despite
your claim that Pd-extended has a license « as a whole ». That person
doesn't have to take anything apart (debundle) or whatever.The « as a whole » concept has a more limited applicability than
what youseem to be claiming.
There are many examples of software that includes code that has
many different licenese. ffmpeg/libav is an example. It not only gives you ./ configure flags to support different licenses, but also includes non-free code,
that when linked together into a binary is not legal to distribute.Perhaps in theory this is bad. Then there is theory and there is
practice. I'll bet there are many people who are glad to be able to compile
this non-free ffmpeg, because once they have the binary it will be able
to do things that the free ffmpeg cannot.Wait a second-- didn't you decide not to include some external that
Yves authored which had a clause that made it nonfree? If so, then why are you
arguing from the practicality angle for another software package?But those two questions are for curiosity's sake-- they are
irrelevant to the discussion at hand because all the licenses we're talking about are free
software licenses. It's simply a matter of whether one ought to say GPLv3 as a whole or that
the core of Pd-extended is GPL3, and that there are various free licenses for
the external libraries.(Well, there's also the issue of GPLv2 or later vs GPLv2 only, but
we've completed the discussion for that one.)
Building ffmpeg as non-free means the binaries cannot be
redistributed. The vast majority of Pd users want to download
binaries, not build their own. They are free to download pidip and
use it with Pd-extended under the terms of the pidip license.
If someone wants to maintain some kind of configuration that deals
with pidip's restrictive license, they are free to do so, like they
did with ffmpeg. I have zero interest in spending my time doing that.
.hc
kill your television