On 15/03/12 12:07, Marco Donnarumma wrote:
On Thu, Mar 15, 2012 at 11:05 AM, Marco Donnarumma <devel@thesaddj.com mailto:devel@thesaddj.com> wrote:
...
I found this FAQ: ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ If a library is released under the GPL (not the LGPL), does that mean that any software which uses it has to be under the GPL or a GPL-compatible license? Yes, because the software as it is actually run includes the library. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The problem, I think, is the definition of 'library' for Pd patches... Here I think the FAQ refers to something like, I create a cool C library for doing, say, FFT. It is GPL. If you make the CoolAudioEditor using that library for FFT then CoolAudioEditor will also have to be GPL or GPL-compatible.
I think MAX (and Pd) are more of a Runtime Environment, so the best translation I might think of for that FAQ is: say I make an external or abstraction (like many in Pd-extended) which is GPL and I use that in my patch(s), then my patch must be GPL too. This much more relevant to MAX, because there you can actualy make standalone binary versions of patches. In this way any patch built with XS, should it be ported, (including XS for MAX itself) should then be GPL, and thus even if I built a commercial, binary, i-XSense-4MAX-4live-pad-seven... I should also release the source code as GPL.
is this a show-stopper for porting of the XS into a proprietary environment?
I don't think so, although it might be worth trying to convince people to give Pd a go. And if they really can't avoid using MAX use them together, say, with OSC etc.
p.s. I would be happy if it was.
eh eh you want to get out of it with "vorrei ma non posso" :)
Lorenzo.