What are the rules about distributing this?
There are no rules :) You can do whatever you like with it.
BTW, where's the source code of that release of FFT? I don't see the source available on the author's page. (I am blind, right?)
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):
http://eamusic.dartmouth.edu/~eric/MAX/FFTease/code.html
link error 0 dyld: pd multiple definitions of symbol _bitrv2 /usr/local/lib/pd/morphine~.pd_darwin definition of _bitrv2 /usr/local/lib/pd/pvwarp~.pd_darwin definition of _bitrv2
I encountered that problem a long time ago; the externals make calls to another library and earlier versions of Pd had a problem with this. I cannot however reproduce this problem on my current versions of Pd (0.38-3 and 0.38.4-extended-RC6). If more people encounter this conflict please let me know.
But it would be quite nice to be able to distribute FFTease built-in to Pd-extended.
I'm happy for you to do so, but only if you are comfortable with the way the software has been released.
the homepage states (in red!): "FFTease may be used freely for any artistic or research purpose." which i consider to be _not_ compatible with the GPL.
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.
Eric
Hallo, Eric Lyon hat gesagt: // 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 how to compile it).
Figuring out stuff like this is what some people here specialize in. ;)
the homepage states (in red!): "FFTease may be used freely for any artistic or research purpose." which i consider to be _not_ compatible with the GPL.
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.
It would be nice, if FFTease somehow coule be made to drop the restriction on artistic andd research uses - like for example the OSC-Kit library by Matt Wright did about a year ago.
Ciao
Frank Barknecht _ ______footils.org_ __goto10.org__
On Feb 1, 2006, at 8:58 AM, Eric Lyon wrote:
What are the rules about distributing this?
There are no rules :) You can do whatever you like with it.
BTW, where's the source code of that release of FFT? I don't see the source available on the author's page. (I am blind, right?)
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):http://eamusic.dartmouth.edu/~eric/MAX/FFTease/code.html
link error 0 dyld: pd multiple definitions of symbol _bitrv2 /usr/local/lib/pd/morphine~.pd_darwin definition of _bitrv2 /usr/local/lib/pd/pvwarp~.pd_darwin definition of _bitrv2
I encountered that problem a long time ago; the externals make calls to another library and earlier versions of Pd had a problem with this. I cannot however reproduce this problem on my current versions of Pd (0.38-3 and 0.38.4-extended-RC6). If more people encounter this
conflict please let me know.But it would be quite nice to be able to distribute FFTease built-in to Pd-extended.
I'm happy for you to do so, but only if you are comfortable with the way the software has been released.
the homepage states (in red!): "FFTease may be used freely for any artistic or research purpose." which i consider to be _not_ compatible with the GPL.
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 only restriction the GPL places on the code is that if you
distribute GPL'ed software, you also have to distribute the source.
That's the only restriction. The license is infectious, so if you
build something that uses some GPL'ed code, you have to release your
code using the GPL too.
But in the case of FFTease, you could release it under a MIT or BSD
license, both of which let anyone do anything with it with minor
restrictions: both require that the copyright notice is always
distributed with any software that uses the code, and the BSD license
requires that you get written permission before using the name of the
software/copyright owner. Both of these are completely compatible with
the GPL. You could also put it in the public domain, then anyone could
do anything with it, regardless.
It order for FFTease to be included in Pd-extended, it would have to
use a GPL-compatible license.
.hc
As we enjoy great advantages from inventions of others, we should be
glad of an opportunity to serve others by any invention of ours; and
this we should do freely and generously.
- Benjamin Franklin
On Wed, 1 Feb 2006, Eric Lyon wrote:
What are the rules about distributing this?
There are no rules :) You can do whatever you like with it.
Copyright law defaults to "all rights reserved", which means "no redistribution allowed". Everything must be explicit.
link error 0 dyld: pd multiple definitions of symbol _bitrv2 /usr/local/lib/pd/morphine~.pd_darwin definition of _bitrv2 /usr/local/lib/pd/pvwarp~.pd_darwin definition of _bitrv2
I encountered that problem a long time ago; the externals make calls to another library and earlier versions of Pd had a problem with this.
Maybe it can be fixed by making libfftease a *.dylib file. Or maybe you can tweak something with "two-level namespaces". I don't know/recall much OSX, it's just two things i might try if I had to use it on OSX.
I think this is probably correct; as I understand it, the GPL places some restrictions on what you can do with the code.
Yes, the main restriction being that you can't put any more restrictions on distribution of the software than the GPL says there should be. The GPL's other restrictions are, in comparison, administrative details.
Not granting rights to the general public (e.g. such as only mentioning artistic and research and nothing else) amounts to putting a lot of restriction.
_ _ __ ___ _____ ________ _____________ _____________________ ... | Mathieu Bouchard - tél:+1.514.383.3801 - http://artengine.ca/matju | Freelance Digital Arts Engineer, Montréal QC Canada
Not granting rights to the general public (e.g. such as only mentioning artistic and research and nothing else) amounts to putting a lot of restriction.
In any case the Pd version is now under the MIT license which hopefully will allow people to feel comfortable doing whatever they like with FFTease.
Eric
On Feb 2, 2006, at 6:52 AM, Eric Lyon wrote:
Not granting rights to the general public (e.g. such as only
mentioning artistic and research and nothing else) amounts to putting a lot of restriction.In any case the Pd version is now under the MIT license which hopefully will allow people to feel comfortable doing whatever they like with FFTease.
Yup, that's perfect. Thanks!
In effect, it sounds like you were releasing it under a MIT-style
license all along. Its just that the law is so huge, and lawyers are
so expensive, so if you use a well established license, the
ramifications are well documented and already worked out. If you use
your own license, then only a court can tell us definitively what the
general public's rights are.
.hc ________________________________________________________________________ ____
"If nature has made any one thing less susceptible than all others of
exclusive property, it is the action of the thinking power called an
idea, which an individual may exclusively possess as long as he keeps
it to himself; but the moment it is divulged, it forces itself into the
possession of everyone, and the receiver cannot dispossess himself of
it."
- Thomas
Jefferson
-
Eric Lyon -
Frank Barknecht -
Hans-Christoph Steiner -
Mathieu Bouchard