On Mar 8, 2007, at 6:16 PM, Thomas Grill wrote:
Am 09.03.2007 um 00:03 schrieb Tim Blechmann:
On Thu, 2007-03-08 at 23:37 +0100, Thomas Grill wrote:
Is Flext based externals, which need be GPL externals, violating
the GPL when used as Max/MSP externals? If so, and if the GPL is not violated when using the Flext based externals with Pd, then it
makes sense in my head to distinguish between binary and source wrt violation against the GPL. But Flext might have a clause that catches just that?To my mind, flext-based Max externals would only violate the GPL, if they were shipped closed-source with Max. If the are GPL'd as well and installed by the user, i don't see why this should be a problem.
although i don't really like this clause, the following
description is quite clear: http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#GPLPluginsInNFI knew about this one, but i don't think that this is applicable if there is no actual distribution of the non-GPLd program with GPLd plugins. I might be wrong, though. Anyway, i don't care much - if the GPL is odd enough to violate against such usage i would consider a different license. Idealism gone.
Its a catch22 in the license, but it would only be a problem if the
copyright holder enforces it. If you are the copyright holder, and
you don't decide to enforce that particular part of the license, then
there is no other problem.
.hc
greetings, Thomas
-- Thomas Grill http://grrrr.org
PD-list@iem.at mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> http://lists.puredata.info/ listinfo/pd-list
Looking at things from a more basic level, you can come up with a
more direct solution... It may sound small in theory, but it in
practice, it can change entire economies. - Amy Smith