Wow, I guess I was wrong about this being off topic. It seems people
have a lot of questions about this.
In the case of a GPL project including a BSD code, there is not a
separate license. Only the copyright holder can change the license.
It is just that the BSD license allows you to add additional
restrictions. The GPL adds one restriction: whenever you give someone
the software, you have to also give them the source code.
So if you were going to include Pd-extended in your OS as a whole, you
have to treat all the code as GPLv3. list-abs is a library included
in Pd-extended. It is released under a BSD license. If you download
list-abs by itself and package that, then it is not Pd-extended. So
its BSD.
.hc
On Sep 28, 2011, at 10:27 AM, Ludwig Maes wrote:
If source code and binaries can have seperate licences, what about
object files or intermediate representations in the compiler (GIMPLE
etc)? ...On 28 September 2011 15:10, Hans-Christoph Steiner hans@at.or.at
wrote:On Sep 28, 2011, at 1:47 AM, Chris McCormick wrote:
Hi Hans,
On Tue, Sep 27, 2011 at 05:32:14PM -0400, Hans-Christoph Steiner
wrote:On Sep 27, 2011, at 4:53 PM, Mathieu Bouchard wrote:
Le 2011-09-27 à 16:41:00, Hans-Christoph Steiner a écrit :
No one is talking about relicensing. BSD, MIT, Tcl, LGPL, etc. are compatible with GPLv3, that means you can include code with those licenses into a GPLv3 project and that is allowed. Then the whole project is GPLv3.
You mean that the whole project is GPLv3-compatible, or that it is GPLv3 ?
If it is the latter, then when do the GPLv3's obligations ever apply to me when I do whatever with Pd-extended ?
I think you need to read up on how licenses work, its a bit off topic here. But yes, Pd-extended is GPLv3 as a whole.
What I mean to say is that I don't have the time right know to
explain the details of how licensing works in regards to Pd- extended. But there are many sources of that information.IANAL but I think Mathieu is correct. Software licenses apply to
specific source code and binaries. I think you need to distinctly
specify that the parts you have contributed (e.g. those patches in
your git branch that you apply to Vanilla BSD as well as whatever
TCL code you have added, as well as any externals you have written
that aren't already licensed) are GPLv3.Hm, wait a second. Maybe the pd-extended binary can be licensed
GPLv3 which might be what you mean.That is what I mean. I also mean that if you use Pd-extended as a
whole, then it is GPLv3. The Pd-extended source code includes all
of the licenses files of the included subprojects, fulfilling the
requirements of BSD, MIT, etc..hc
"Making boring techno music is really easy with modern tools, but
with live coding, boring techno is much harder." - Chris McCormick
Pd-list@iem.at mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
"We have nothing to fear from love and commitment." - New York Senator
Diane Savino, trying to convince the NY Senate to pass a gay marriage
bill
Le 2011-09-28 à 10:35:00, Hans-Christoph Steiner a écrit :
In the case of a GPL project including a BSD code, there is not a separate license. Only the copyright holder can change the license. It is just that the BSD license allows you to add additional restrictions. The GPL adds one restriction: whenever you give someone the software, you have to also give them the source code.
GPL also adds the restriction of not adding any additional restrictions, and that's a restriction by itself (I'm not saying that it's good or bad).
It can also be counted as several additional restrictions, depending on the way one reads it.
So if you were going to include Pd-extended in your OS as a whole, you have to treat all the code as GPLv3. list-abs is a library included in Pd-extended. It is released under a BSD license. If you download list-abs by itself and package that, then it is not Pd-extended. So its BSD.
If someone includes Pd-extended as a whole in their OS, and modify BSD externals, while keeping them bundled with the rest of Pd-extended, they don't have to distribute the source to those modifications, despite your claim that Pd-extended has a license « as a whole ». That person doesn't have to take anything apart (debundle) or whatever.
The « as a whole » concept has a more limited applicability than what you seem to be claiming.
| Mathieu BOUCHARD ----- téléphone : +1.514.383.3801 ----- Montréal, QC
On Oct 6, 2011, at 5:58 PM, Mathieu Bouchard wrote:
Le 2011-09-28 à 10:35:00, Hans-Christoph Steiner a écrit :
In the case of a GPL project including a BSD code, there is not a
separate license. Only the copyright holder can change the
license. It is just that the BSD license allows you to add
additional restrictions. The GPL adds one restriction: whenever
you give someone the software, you have to also give them the
source code.GPL also adds the restriction of not adding any additional
restrictions, and that's a restriction by itself (I'm not saying
that it's good or bad).It can also be counted as several additional restrictions, depending
on the way one reads it.So if you were going to include Pd-extended in your OS as a whole,
you have to treat all the code as GPLv3. list-abs is a library
included in Pd-extended. It is released under a BSD license. If
you download list-abs by itself and package that, then it is not Pd- extended. So its BSD.If someone includes Pd-extended as a whole in their OS, and modify
BSD externals, while keeping them bundled with the rest of Pd- extended, they don't have to distribute the source to those
modifications, despite your claim that Pd-extended has a license «
as a whole ». That person doesn't have to take anything apart
(debundle) or whatever.The « as a whole » concept has a more limited applicability than
what you seem to be claiming.
There are many examples of software that includes code that has many
different licenese. ffmpeg/libav is an example. It not only gives
you ./configure flags to support different licenses, but also includes
non-free code, that when linked together into a binary is not legal to
distribute.
Perhaps in theory this is bad. Then there is theory and there is
practice. I'll bet there are many people who are glad to be able to
compile this non-free ffmpeg, because once they have the binary it
will be able to do things that the free ffmpeg cannot.
.hc
¡El pueblo unido jamás será vencido!
Le 2011-10-12 à 16:00:00, Hans-Christoph Steiner a écrit :
There are many examples of software that includes code that has many different licenese.
I have no idea what point you're trying to make, or whether you have understood me at all.
| Mathieu BOUCHARD ----- téléphone : +1.514.383.3801 ----- Montréal, QC
On Oct 12, 2011, at 5:32 PM, Mathieu Bouchard wrote:
Le 2011-10-12 à 16:00:00, Hans-Christoph Steiner a écrit :
There are many examples of software that includes code that has
many different licenese.I have no idea what point you're trying to make, or whether you have
understood me at all.
I'm trying to say that this issue is not limited to Pd-extended, and
indeed is somewhat common, so perhaps in your search for answers, you
might be better off looking at software like ffmpeg, which has a much
larger userbase, as well as a large userbase that is much more
sensitive to license issues (i.e. proprietary software companies like
google, etc.).
.hc
"[W]e have invented the technology to eliminate scarcity, but we are
deliberately throwing it away to benefit those who profit from
scarcity." -John Gilmore
----- Original Message -----
From: Hans-Christoph Steiner hans@at.or.at To: Mathieu Bouchard matju@artengine.ca Cc: Pd List pd-list@iem.kug.ac.at Sent: Wednesday, October 12, 2011 4:00 PM Subject: Re: [PD] pd-extended license WAS: Keyboard shortcuts for "nudge", "done editing"
On Oct 6, 2011, at 5:58 PM, Mathieu Bouchard wrote:
Le 2011-09-28 à 10:35:00, Hans-Christoph Steiner a écrit :
In the case of a GPL project including a BSD code, there is not a
separate license. Only the copyright holder can change the license. It is just that the BSD license allows you to add additional restrictions. The GPL adds one restriction: whenever you give someone the software, you have to also give them the source code.
GPL also adds the restriction of not adding any additional restrictions,
and that's a restriction by itself (I'm not saying that it's good or bad).
It can also be counted as several additional restrictions, depending on the
way one reads it.
So if you were going to include Pd-extended in your OS as a whole, you
have to treat all the code as GPLv3. list-abs is a library included in Pd-extended. It is released under a BSD license. If you download list-abs by itself and package that, then it is not Pd-extended. So its BSD.
If someone includes Pd-extended as a whole in their OS, and modify BSD
externals, while keeping them bundled with the rest of Pd-extended, they don't have to distribute the source to those modifications, despite your claim that Pd-extended has a license « as a whole ». That person doesn't have to take anything apart (debundle) or whatever.
The « as a whole » concept has a more limited applicability than what you
seem to be claiming.
There are many examples of software that includes code that has many different licenese. ffmpeg/libav is an example. It not only gives you ./configure flags to support different licenses, but also includes non-free code, that when linked together into a binary is not legal to distribute.
Perhaps in theory this is bad. Then there is theory and there is practice. I'll bet there are many people who are glad to be able to compile this non-free ffmpeg, because once they have the binary it will be able to do things that the free ffmpeg cannot.
Wait a second-- didn't you decide not to include some external that Yves authored which had a clause that made it nonfree? If so, then why are you arguing from the practicality angle for another software package?
But those two questions are for curiosity's sake-- they are irrelevant to the discussion at hand because all the licenses we're talking about are free software licenses. It's simply a matter of whether one ought to say GPLv3 as a whole or that the core of Pd-extended is GPL3, and that there are various free licenses for the external libraries.
(Well, there's also the issue of GPLv2 or later vs GPLv2 only, but we've completed the discussion for that one.)
-Jonathan
.hc
On Oct 12, 2011, at 5:42 PM, Jonathan Wilkes wrote:
----- Original Message -----
From: Hans-Christoph Steiner hans@at.or.at To: Mathieu Bouchard matju@artengine.ca Cc: Pd List pd-list@iem.kug.ac.at Sent: Wednesday, October 12, 2011 4:00 PM Subject: Re: [PD] pd-extended license WAS: Keyboard shortcuts for
"nudge", "done editing"On Oct 6, 2011, at 5:58 PM, Mathieu Bouchard wrote:
Le 2011-09-28 à 10:35:00, Hans-Christoph Steiner a écrit :
In the case of a GPL project including a BSD code, there is not a
separate license. Only the copyright holder can change the
license. It is just that the BSD license allows you to add additional restrictions.
The GPL adds one restriction: whenever you give someone the software, you have
to also give them the source code.GPL also adds the restriction of not adding any additional
restrictions,and that's a restriction by itself (I'm not saying that it's good or bad).
It can also be counted as several additional restrictions,
depending on theway one reads it.
So if you were going to include Pd-extended in your OS as a
whole, youhave to treat all the code as GPLv3. list-abs is a library
included in Pd-extended. It is released under a BSD license. If you download
list-abs by itself and package that, then it is not Pd-extended. So its BSD.If someone includes Pd-extended as a whole in their OS, and modify
BSDexternals, while keeping them bundled with the rest of Pd-extended,
they don't have to distribute the source to those modifications, despite
your claim that Pd-extended has a license « as a whole ». That person
doesn't have to take anything apart (debundle) or whatever.The « as a whole » concept has a more limited applicability than
what youseem to be claiming.
There are many examples of software that includes code that has
many different licenese. ffmpeg/libav is an example. It not only gives you ./ configure flags to support different licenses, but also includes non-free code,
that when linked together into a binary is not legal to distribute.Perhaps in theory this is bad. Then there is theory and there is
practice. I'll bet there are many people who are glad to be able to compile
this non-free ffmpeg, because once they have the binary it will be able
to do things that the free ffmpeg cannot.Wait a second-- didn't you decide not to include some external that
Yves authored which had a clause that made it nonfree? If so, then why are you
arguing from the practicality angle for another software package?But those two questions are for curiosity's sake-- they are
irrelevant to the discussion at hand because all the licenses we're talking about are free
software licenses. It's simply a matter of whether one ought to say GPLv3 as a whole or that
the core of Pd-extended is GPL3, and that there are various free licenses for
the external libraries.(Well, there's also the issue of GPLv2 or later vs GPLv2 only, but
we've completed the discussion for that one.)
Building ffmpeg as non-free means the binaries cannot be
redistributed. The vast majority of Pd users want to download
binaries, not build their own. They are free to download pidip and
use it with Pd-extended under the terms of the pidip license.
If someone wants to maintain some kind of configuration that deals
with pidip's restrictive license, they are free to do so, like they
did with ffmpeg. I have zero interest in spending my time doing that.
.hc
kill your television
-
Hans-Christoph Steiner -
Jonathan Wilkes -
Mathieu Bouchard