Hi,
the personn concern by this didn't really give his opinion, or maybe I am wrong he already done in a previous thread that talked about this problem.
we all agree that all versions realized since now are under GPL's licence terms and that won't change! But I didn't understand what will happen for next, it seems some people here are more informed than others?
Is this double licence will affect the copy of the software, to change the code, redistribute it... will be people have to  use the both same licence GPL and SIBSD(?), why  did you talked, Mathieu, in the term "non-free software, and at worst, it's illegal to distribute it"? We need to know if this is serious or non-sense? Because it could change the way we work with this piece of software... I think that's a subject that concern every users here to know what's happen with PD and librairies, because PIDIP is a group of externals, it's not PD itself... it's like the story with Olaf and his ogg objects, his position was clear... what about this time? Why Yves choose 2 licence, why GPL is not anymore suited to his work?


cheers

juto


Please note that PiDiP is legally muddy. At best, it's non-free software, 
and at worst, it's illegal to distribute it.

This is because it has two licences and no mention that the user can pick
either, so by default all licenses must apply at once, and because those
two licenses are conflicting. It's licensed under both the GPL and a
modified SIBSD license. Normally, GPL and SIBSD are compatible, but the 
extra PiDiP-specific clause is conflicting with the GPL.

The PiDiP-specific clause is also conflicting with the FSD (Free Software
Definition) and the OSD (Open-Source Definition): this is what is 
prompting Hans to remove PiDiP from the pd-extended installers.

For more information you may read the pd-dev archives starting December 
30th, 2005.