On Jun 15, 2006, at 5:55 PM, Damian Stewart wrote:
Marc Lavallée wrote:
Le 15 Juin 2006 09:40, Frank Barknecht a écrit :
There seems to be no consensus about wether a patch, that uses externals released under GPL, should have to be GPL, too.
Personally I don't believe it has to be GPL, but I think, IOhannes once argued
that it has to be GPL as well. (Which would mean, that all patches using [expr] would need to be GPL, btw.)A patch is not a derived work, so it doesn't have to be GPL. For example, an image created with Gimp doesn't have to be GPL.
yeah, but [expr] isn't like Gimp, it's more like a library. for
example if you were to take gimp and build some larger program
using it, then the larger program would have to be gpl. pd patches
are more like software objects than sound objects...hmm, although in that thinking [expr] is being used like a lib in
traditional software development; just using a gpl'd lib doesn't
mean that you have to gpl the thing that uses the lib - does it?
The GNU GPL requires software that links against GPL'ed libraries to
GPL'ed also. The LGPL does not.
.hc
http://at.or.at/hans/