On Jan 28, 2008, at 1:23 PM, marius schebella wrote:
Hans-Christoph Steiner wrote:
On Jan 28, 2008, at 3:45 AM, Frank Barknecht wrote:
Hallo, Damian Stewart hat gesagt: // Damian Stewart wrote:
then there's the question of whether any and all Pd patches are
'derived works' (derived from Pd) or '[a combination of] two modules into
one program' and therefore need to be GPL.Pd isn't GPL, so even if patches were derived from it, you'd be fine in that regard.
Most externals are GPL'ed (and therefore Pd-extended too), so
there you have to watch.does this mean it makes a difference if I use a library from within
pd-extended or install it myself?
Technically, yes, but in reality, not really. If someone tried to
enforce the GPL on you, then you'd just have to make your own custom
build using the BSD licensed code.
from my understanding GPL is more restrictive than the Pd license
(BSD). because it forces me to publish whatever I create under GPL
again. does working with a library that is gpl force me to open source my
pd patch? is a pd patch a derived software at all? and if yes,
which are the libraries that can be used without problems? marius.
That's an interesting question. I think that if you write a patch
that uses a Pd library that is covered by the GPL, technically, your
patch is covered by the GPL. If those libs used the LGPL then you
would not. It's a bit of a gray area, but I release all my code
under the GPL, so I haven't really worried about it.
.hc
If nature has made any one thing less susceptible than all others of
exclusive property, it is the action of the thinking power called an
idea, which an individual may exclusively possess as long as he keeps
it to himself; but the moment it is divulged, it forces itself into
the possession of everyone, and the receiver cannot dispossess
himself of it. - Thomas Jefferson