The main reason I did not post the source is because it is not yet unified or easy to compile, and I wanted to make the externals available before however many months it might take for me to get the code in shape. However you are welcome to get the code over here (but you have to figure out how
to
compile it).
Figuring out stuff like this is what some people here specialize in. ;)
I'm aware of that; for now the code is online for anyone who would like to play with it, (http://eamusic.dartmouth.edu/~eric/MAX/FFTease/code.html) but I'm not happy with its current state, so I guess I don't want to put it on the main page where someone might download it, try to compile it and it probably wouldn't work for them. There are a lot of gurus on this list, but I think it's important to have consideration for some of the people here who don't eat C code for breakfast.
I think this is probably correct; as I understand it, the GPL places some restrictions on what you can do with the code. I think we are a bit more permissive, but if there is some way that you find our "licencette" more restrictive, I'm willing to consider relaxing it.
The problem is, that any Open Source/Free Software by definition must not pose any restrictions on how that software is used. So if FFTease would *only* be allowed to be used for research and arts, but not for any other uses (like making coffee), then FFTease would not be free software as it violates "freedom 0": "The freedom to run the program, for any purpose" - including making coffee.
Thanks for putting it that way. Technically it doesn't prohibit you from making coffee or doing anything else, but I see that explicitly stating the things that we expect most people would do with FFTease might imply that you can't do other things with it. I suppose we could say "can be freely used for any artistic or research purpose, or anything else you can think of," but that sounds kind of clunky. Note we did not use the word *only* in the licencette - we said what you *could* do, not what you couldn't do. I might consider something like Christopher's licencette for HyperUpic which states, "use freely at your own psychological risk."
It's tough to cover all bases. For example, IIRC Miller states that you can use Pd "for any reasonable purpose." But I reckon that many uses of Pd might be considered unreasonable and that's what makes them interesting. If this is really a problem for people, I'll give it some thought and see if I can come up with something that doesn't offend my sense of aesthetics.
Eric
On Feb 1, 2006, at 3:48 PM, Eric Lyon wrote:
The main reason I did not post the source is because it is not yet
unified or easy to compile, and I wanted to make the externals available
before however many months it might take for me to get the code in shape.
However you are welcome to get the code over here (but you have to figure
out howto
compile it).
Figuring out stuff like this is what some people here specialize in.
;)I'm aware of that; for now the code is online for anyone who would
like to play with it,
(http://eamusic.dartmouth.edu/~eric/MAX/FFTease/code.html) but I'm not happy with its current state, so I guess I don't want to put it on the main page where someone might download it, try to
compile it and it probably wouldn't work for them. There are a lot of gurus on
this list, but I think it's important to have consideration for some of the
people here who don't eat C code for breakfast.I think this is probably correct; as I understand it, the GPL places
some restrictions on what you can do with the code. I think we are a bit more permissive, but if there is some way that you find our
"licencette" more restrictive, I'm willing to consider relaxing it.The problem is, that any Open Source/Free Software by definition must not pose any restrictions on how that software is used. So if FFTease would *only* be allowed to be used for research and arts, but not for any other uses (like making coffee), then FFTease would not be free software as it violates "freedom 0": "The freedom to run the program, for any purpose" - including making coffee.
Thanks for putting it that way. Technically it doesn't prohibit you
from making coffee or doing anything else, but I see that explicitly
stating the things that we expect most people would do with FFTease might imply that you can't do other things with it. I suppose we could say "can be freely used for any artistic or research purpose, or anything else you can think of," but that sounds kind of clunky. Note we did not use the word *only* in the licencette - we said what you *could* do, not what you couldn't do. I might consider something like Christopher's
licencette for HyperUpic which states, "use freely at your own psychological risk."It's tough to cover all bases. For example, IIRC Miller states that you can use Pd "for any reasonable purpose." But I reckon that many uses of Pd might be considered unreasonable and that's what makes them interesting. If this is really a problem for people, I'll give it some
thought and see if I can come up with something that doesn't offend my sense of aesthetics.
Miller releases Pd with the BSD license, which allows anyone to do
anything with the code as long as they include the copyright notice.
The BSD or MIT license could work well for FFTease. For example, it
would allow us to include FFTease in the Pd-extended builds
(http://at.or.at/hans/pd/installers.html ), then it would work on all
three platforms, and would be included as a binary automatically for
anyone who installed one of those packages.
http://www.opensource.org/licenses/bsd-license.php
A couple of things would make it much easier to build too.
- move the headers in "include" with the source like how its done with
Pd itself.
- In MSPd.h, use the _MSC_VER macro, which is defines by MS Visual C++,
so that only these defines are only used by that compiler. I.e.
change:
#define MSP (1)
#define PD (!MSP)
To this: #ifdef _MSC_VER #define MSP (1) #define PD (!MSP) #endif /* _MSC_VER */
- unifying the lib source instead of having a directory per OS with
some duplicated files, You can use make's "ifeq" include different
things for building in the Makefile. Its used in externals/Makefile,
if you want an example.
There are other things too that I would be willing to do if the license
would allow us to keep the FFTease source in the pure-data CVS, and
distribute it with Pd-extended, which must be distributed using a GNU
GPL license.
.hc
"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
Hallo, Eric Lyon hat gesagt: // Eric Lyon wrote:
Thanks for putting it that way. Technically it doesn't prohibit you from making coffee or doing anything else, but I see that explicitly stating the things that we expect most people would do with FFTease might imply that you can't do other things with it. I suppose we could say "can be freely used for any artistic or research purpose, or anything else you can think of," but that sounds kind of clunky. Note we did not use the word *only* in the licencette - we said what you *could* do, not what you couldn't do.
Maybe many people in the electronic music scene still have bad feelings when they read the words "for any artistic or research purpose" because they get reminded of the old Csound license [1] which led to huge flame wars etc. on the Csound lists and beyond until Csound finally changed to be LGPL.
[1] still available here: http://www.cs.bath.ac.uk/pub/dream/Copyrights
Ciao
Frank Barknecht _ ______footils.org_ __goto10.org__
-
Eric Lyon -
Frank Barknecht -
Hans-Christoph Steiner