Tim Blechmann wrote:
On Wed, 2006-06-21 at 12:01 +0200, IOhannes m zmoelnig wrote:
what if, when you share a patch and give a dummy-[expr] with it and
you
tell explicitly not to use the 'original' [expr], that comes with millers pd, and people do substitute it by themselves?
if your patch is released under a GPL-incompatible license, then the users who substitute your [expr] with the GPL'ed one, might be violating the GPL (probably only, if they distribute your patch "linked" with GPL [expr]); your patch should not be affected by whatever license shahrokh's [expr] is released under.
well, my interpretation of: http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#IfInterpreterIsGPL is the following:
if expr would be part of the pd language, patches wouldn't have to be gpl-compatible licensed ... the question is, _is_ expr part of the pd language? as there is no language specification it is not clear ...
since [expr] is not part of pd itself, how should it be part of the language?
i think the number of objects that are really part of the Pd-language (this is: they are "keywords") is rather small. i think that most objects that are built-ins are not to be seen as "part of the language" but part of the default "object library" that comes with pd.
otoh, it's also possible to run gpl'ed programs with a proprietary interpreter like max/msp (http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#TOCInterpreterIncompat)
and i am pretty sure that it is allowed to compile GPL'ed sources with proprietary compilers (else we would have a problem), as well as run it on proprietary operating systems and hardware.
mfg.sdr IOhannes