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 ...
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)
cheers ... tim
-- tim@klingt.org ICQ: 96771783 http://www.mokabar.tk
Nothing exists until or unless it is observed. An artist is making something exist by observing it. And his hope for other people is that they will also make it exist by observing it. I call it 'creative observation.' Creative viewing. William S. Burroughs