On 15. January 2006, at 18:30, ydegoyon@free.fr wrote:

now, we stream ogg/theora on icecast 2 servers and it works much better than ffmpeg, vlc, darwin server, ...

ok -thanks, merci! i guess this is done via [pdp_icedthe~].

maybe you can answer me further questions before i start installing +patching, i'm on a mac and have almost no experience with linux..

can pdp_icedthe~ be used for 8 streams (320x240, no sound)
simultaneously? what computing power would be necessary, you guess? is icegast able to run 2 videos full-screen on 2 displays that are
connected to PCI-graphic cards on a pentium ~1.5ghz? (vlc did on
windows while gem failed).

( the set-up is: 8 TVs connected to 4 (old) PCs with 2 pci-graphic- cards each. wanted to do that with a patching-environment on every pc
and synching over OSC. but pd+max+vvvv didn't work proper yet (except
vvvv, but not in full-screen) )

danke again, rainer.

we probably should not go that far into details, and certainly not declare open wars. please, please, take it a little bit more easy.

vincent

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.

http://lists.puredata.info/pipermail/pd-dev/ examples: http://lists.puredata.info/pipermail/pd-dev/2005-12/005587.html http://lists.puredata.info/pipermail/pd-dev/2005-12/005599.html http://lists.puredata.info/pipermail/pd-dev/2005-12/005598.html http://lists.puredata.info/pipermail/pd-dev/2006-01/005667.html

also pd-ot:

http://lists.puredata.info/pipermail/pd-ot/ examples: http://lists.puredata.info/pipermail/pd-ot/2006-01/001373.html http://lists.puredata.info/pipermail/pd-ot/2006-01/001377.html

_ _ __ ___ _____ ________ _____________ _____________________ ... | Mathieu Bouchard - tél:+1.514.383.3801 - http://artengine.ca/matju | Freelance Digital Arts Engineer, Montréal QC Canada

---

PD-list@iem.at mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list

Mathieu Bouchard wrote:

On Tue, 17 Jan 2006, vincent rioux wrote:

...

we probably should not go that far into details,

which details are superfluous?

...

and certainly not declare open wars. please, please, take it a little bit more easy.

How does mentioning legal issues constitute a declaration of war? You are belittling the importance of legal issues and exaggerating the intent of my posting.

How is "taking it easy" going to get anything solved?

What's your agenda in wanting me to stay quiet about the facts?

Mathieu, mille excuses for my lack of precision. i really respect your work and have no interest whatsoever in setting you quiet. best regards, vincent

On Mon, 16 Jan 2006, Hans-Christoph Steiner wrote:

PiDiP is actually GPL'ed since its based on GPL code, effectv.

It doesn't work like that. The GPL isn't some kind of virus that turns things into GPL without the author's consent.

A conflict of licenses between GPL and something else first makes the software non-distributable, and then the author decides to change the license.

The GPL (or any other license) doesn't have the power to change the license of any other software: it only incitates a change of license indirectly. It's not the only option: e.g.:

PiDiP could keep the GPL-incompatible license by replacing all of the GPL code by some other differently-licensed compatible non-derivative code.

PiDiP could also get a special permission from Kentaro Fukuchi and all other relevant authors for an alternate license on EffecTV: e.g. if EffecTV were re-released under the SIBSD or the MITX11 license, then PiDiP wouldn't be bound by the GPL anymore and so Yves would not be anymore forbidden to add non-free clauses.

_ _ __ ___ _____ ________ _____________ _____________________ ... | Mathieu Bouchard - tél:+1.514.383.3801 - http://artengine.ca/matju | Freelance Digital Arts Engineer, Montréal QC Canada

On Tue, 17 Jan 2006, Hans-Christoph Steiner wrote:

Actually, it does work like that in this situation. PiDiP started with GNU GPL'ed code, therefore must remain GPL'ed. Yves could get permission from the effectv for a different license, then change the PiDiP license, but that would only affect future versions of PiDiP.

I'm looking at clause 5 of the GPL right now and it's quite perplexing. I'm quite convinced that it's not permitted by law to take a package that is not legally distributable and assume that its licensing is something else just because it's the only way out for the software to stay distributable. I'm looking at clause 4 and it would seem that "any attempt to sublicense the program is void, and will automatically terminate your rights under this License", which is not the same as a license magically being applied to the derivative works without the consent of the author of the derivative works (who holds a copyright on the modifications made to the original works).

Maybe it's time to ask for advice from the Free Software Foundation and/or other similar organisms?

_ _ __ ___ _____ ________ _____________ _____________________ ... | Mathieu Bouchard - tél:+1.514.383.3801 - http://artengine.ca/matju | Freelance Digital Arts Engineer, Montréal QC Canada

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.

On Wed, 18 Jan 2006, juto aviten wrote:

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.

I am only giving a summary of what happened on another mailing-list. By consulting the archives of pd-dev and pd-ot you can very well figure out what the personne concernée thinks of all this.

we all agree that all versions realized since now are under GPL's licence terms and that won't change!

Source files in PiDiP say the software is under the GPL but LICENSE.txt says it's SIBSD plus the military clause ("not for military use..."). pdp_colorgrid.c refers to LICENSE.txt as being its license. Other files say they are under the GPL and don't even mention LICENSE.txt. Are you confused yet? At the very least you can't link pdp_colorgrid with anything in PiDiP. For the other files, LICENSE.txt says that specific files may be excepted explicitly from the license, but the way it's worded, the military clause doesn't seem to be exceptable from. And then it's sort of fishy if 99% of the source files get an exception from LICENSE.txt, don't you think?

What would a lawyer make of this? (that is, apart from money)

Is this double licence will affect the copy of the software, to change the code, redistribute it...

You can't copy PiDiP nor make modified copies of it because both licenses say that you have to preserve the existing license and the GPL license says that you can't add more restrictions, but the military clause is an added restriction.

why did you talked, Mathieu, in the term "non-free software, and at worst, it's illegal to distribute it"?

Well, SIBSD is a very popular free software license, but the line added specifically for PiDiP makes it non-free, and then ambiguating that with the GPL makes more meat for the lawyers. Not like there would be much money to be made, but many organisations have a policy to stay away from any kind of license mess.

We need to know if this is serious or non-sense? Why Yves choose 2 licence, why GPL is not anymore suited to his work?

I can't read Yves' mind. I can only read what he wrote in his source code and on mailing lists. BTW, please read this:

http://lists.puredata.info/pipermail/pd-ot/2006-01/001377.html

And then tell me, how would you deal with someone that has that kind of attitude?

_ _ __ ___ _____ ________ _____________ _____________________ ... | Mathieu Bouchard - tél:+1.514.383.3801 - http://artengine.ca/matju | Freelance Digital Arts Engineer, Montréal QC Canada

Hi Mathieu and friends, ok I saw this message down to pd-ot... and now I start to understood the all thing... Ethically I am quite agree with Yves, it's true that free software are used by Bush administration and for military & repressive use sometimes... it's a hudge problem in a way, politically... The problem here is that Yves does that on software based on effectv & PDP which PIDIP is based on and he added his own personnal & ethical part in the licences whithout talk with the others about this, am I wrong? So he's comment (add) to the licence seems to be in conflict with the source... If Yves made his own piece of software 100% by himself (librairies and stuffs) maybe this added will be valide. But in this case it is not. Also I think what you didn't accept in his attitude, what I understood, is the fact that his statment is quite interesting to talk and push forward in free software world and around the licences questions in the gnu & others communities, and not just put that on piece of librairies based on others librairies and when someone asked about it, just don't care about a clear answer. The subject is really serious and his answer sounds like ironic and "doesn't matter what happen with this", again maybe I am wrong... but the core of the problem seems to be here... and that's pity. Because it's a message to the free software community what he wrote and he don't really assume the consequences... From my point of view he should have been explain why he wrote that, in really clear political words... unfortunetly he completly discredited his own toughts in this case... I think you made well in consulting the gnu community, that something Yves should put on their table by himself, it's a political statment that should be assumed in the right place... The question now is what effectv & PDP crews think about that?

love & peace

juto

...

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.

I am only giving a summary of what happened on another mailing-list. By consulting the archives of pd-dev and pd-ot you can very well figure out what the personne concernée thinks of all this.

...

we all agree that all versions realized since now are under GPL's licence terms and that won't change!

Source files in PiDiP say the software is under the GPL but LICENSE.txt says it's SIBSD plus the military clause ("not for military use..."). pdp_colorgrid.c refers to LICENSE.txt as being its license. Other files say they are under the GPL and don't even mention LICENSE.txt. Are you confused yet? At the very least you can't link pdp_colorgrid with anything in PiDiP. For the other files, LICENSE.txt says that specific files may be excepted explicitly from the license, but the way it's worded, the military clause doesn't seem to be exceptable from. And then it's sort of fishy if 99% of the source files get an exception from LICENSE.txt, don't you think?

What would a lawyer make of this? (that is, apart from money)

...

Is this double licence will affect the copy of the software, to change the code, redistribute it...

You can't copy PiDiP nor make modified copies of it because both licenses say that you have to preserve the existing license and the GPL license says that you can't add more restrictions, but the military clause is an added restriction.

...

why did you talked, Mathieu, in the term "non-free software, and at worst, it's illegal to distribute it"?

Well, SIBSD is a very popular free software license, but the line added specifically for PiDiP makes it non-free, and then ambiguating that with the GPL makes more meat for the lawyers. Not like there would be much money to be made, but many organisations have a policy to stay away from any kind of license mess.

...

We need to know if this is serious or non-sense? Why Yves choose 2 licence, why GPL is not anymore suited to his work?

I can't read Yves' mind. I can only read what he wrote in his source code and on mailing lists. BTW, please read this:

http://lists.puredata.info/pipermail/pd-ot/2006-01/001377.html

And then tell me, how would you deal with someone that has that kind of attitude?

rainer kohlberger wrote:

On 15. January 2006, at 18:30, ydegoyon@free.fr wrote:

...

now, we stream ogg/theora on icecast 2 servers and it works much better than ffmpeg, vlc, darwin server, ...

ok -thanks, merci! i guess this is done via [pdp_icedthe~].

maybe you can answer me further questions before i start installing +patching, i'm on a mac and have almost no experience with linux..

can pdp_icedthe~ be used for 8 streams (320x240, no sound) simultaneously? what computing power would be necessary, you guess? is icegast able to run 2 videos full-screen on 2 displays that are connected to PCI-graphic cards on a pentium ~1.5ghz? (vlc did on windows while gem failed).

( the set-up is: 8 TVs connected to 4 (old) PCs with 2 pci-graphic- cards each. wanted to do that with a patching-environment on every pc and synching over OSC. but pd+max+vvvv didn't work proper yet (except vvvv, but not in full-screen) )

danke again, rainer.

as Deleuze would have said, experiment. i have no idea if this could work as i never tested such a setup ( and nobody did ) but, it will surely work better with linux, as pdp is not available for windows and works slowly on OSX.

suerte, sevy