hard off wrote:

as far as i know...and from what i heard from miller's talk which was recorded at the icmc recently....the pd licence is really very open...and you can do whatever you want with it nearly.

true, but unfortunately i (not being a lawyer) doesn't help you much here.

so what i'm guessing is that it would be up to you to take any steps towards 'owning' or copyrighting your own work.

not really. software developped for an employer might well belong to the employer (normally a "private" employer, but it might be true for university too

• depending on the law wherever you are) and not to the developer who

did all the work (i too have to point you towards the millermax/ircam thing) this might well be defined in the fine-print.

as with our institute we are developping a _lot_ with pd, some things are open sourced (GPL, after some discussion) and others are totally proprietary (industry corporation: you often find you cannot do much if you do such things)

the point is, that your employer could allow you to publish several things under a GPL-license (you have to check with them)

pd's license is very free, allowing you to nicely use it for totally commercial/proprietary projects. the thing is different with external libraries: a lot of them are licensed under GPL. while i am not entirely sure, whether using a GPL-external can be considered as "linking against a library" (but i am rather positive about it), this would mean, that such patch would need to be GPLed too. again you should talk with your employer, whether it is ok for them if you use such libraries. i don't think it is a very good idea if they have very clear ideas about IP, and you just use GPL-libraries and therefore claim that everything you do is GPLed too. i guess they might just decide to not distribute the software (that belongs to them) at all, so the license (which only comes to action when it comes to distributing) has no impact at all.

on the other side, you might well try to release as much software as possible with a free license right now before you talk to them, in order to get a foot in the door.

however, everything you write in your spare time (when nobody is paying for it) is your own property and you do with it whatever you like (like licensing it in terms of freedom). i have written GPL'ed software while being at our institute when there hasn't been a discussion about that yet.

but really...i find it very hard to believe that anyone would ever try to steal your patches. what would they have to gain? who's going to pay money for patches that run in a system that is otherwise completely open source?

people that do not have the knowledge to write the patches themselves ? who is going to pay for proprietary software on linux at all ? people do!

university students....some of them are so full of conspiracy theories....take what they say with a grain of salt i reckon.

unfortunately i am no student any longer. and of course it is highly unlikely that anybody will sue you, just because you have written and freed a nice sequencer.

mfg.ad.r IOhannes

Does anybody have a link to this video?

David __ _ _ _ _ __ ___ _ _ __ _ ___ ____ _ __ __ __ _ __ __ To talk about it is to miss the point http://sintheta.org

Frank Barknecht wrote:

You should read the fine print very closely, maybe taking a lawyer's advice into account as well. This has not much to do with ownership for a Pd patch, actually, it also can also apply to all other kinds of research and development as well as artistic work. Did you see the video from Barcelona with Miller's talk? If not, do so and listen closely to the story Miller tells about IRCAM and Max.

Ciao

...

Does anybody have a link to this video?

http://www.straddle3.net/context/03/en/2005_09.html

-Is there also so a mp3-version of this? I can't play ogg-files.

AvS

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .....................................................................

` |Schreck Ensemble . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . +

`  |# -laboratory for live electro-acoustic music- #            |
   |             http://www.schreck.nl/                         |
   |             http://www.xs4all.nl/~schreck/                 |
 ` *===========================================================++
 ` |Compositions http://www.xs4all.nl/~schreck/html/compo.html  |
 ` |Samples      http://www.xs4all.nl/~schreck/html/samp.html   |
 ` |Patches      http://www.xs4all.nl/~schreck/html/pat.html    |
 ` |Videos       http://www.xs4all.nl/~schreck/html/video.html  |

 ` |Scores       http://www.xs4all.nl/~schreck/html/scores.html |

   *===========================================================++

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .....................................................................

Agreed... I don't think this is a PD question. If you write a formula and publish it as part of your work, the University may be entitled to ownership according to this agreement. Doesn't matter if the formula was written in pencil, pen, on paper, in sand, etc.

I remember having to sign this same type of agreement as a grad student at the UCSD math department (before i dropped out :-) )

Best, p

Quoting Frank Barknecht fbar@footils.org:

Hallo, Chuckk Hubbard hat gesagt: // Chuckk Hubbard wrote:

...

But then someone told me today about some fine print clause somewhere that says University of the Arts owns anything someone creates while they're here. Luckily, since no one here understands either the tuning systems or the inner workings of a PD patch, them knowing what I had in mind doesn't help them if they don't actually have it.

So what I'm wondering is, is there such a thing as ownership with a PD patch? Can anyone direct me to info on this? I'd like to be prepared for anything this little trade school might try.

You should read the fine print very closely, maybe taking a lawyer's advice into account as well. This has not much to do with ownership for a Pd patch, actually, it also can also apply to all other kinds of research and development as well as artistic work. Did you see the video from Barcelona with Miller's talk? If not, do so and listen closely to the story Miller tells about IRCAM and Max.

Ciao

Frank Barknecht _ ______footils.org_ __goto10.org__

---

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

frank or anyone

can you link this video?

On Sep 13, 2005, at 2:04 PM, Frank Barknecht wrote:

Hallo, Chuckk Hubbard hat gesagt: // Chuckk Hubbard wrote:

...

But then someone told me today about some fine print clause somewhere that says University of the Arts owns anything someone creates while they're here. Luckily, since no one here understands either the tuning systems or the inner workings of a PD patch, them knowing what I had in mind doesn't help them if they don't actually have it.

So what I'm wondering is, is there such a thing as ownership with a PD patch? Can anyone direct me to info on this? I'd like to be prepared for anything this little trade school might try.

You should read the fine print very closely, maybe taking a lawyer's advice into account as well. This has not much to do with ownership for a Pd patch, actually, it also can also apply to all other kinds of research and development as well as artistic work. Did you see the video from Barcelona with Miller's talk? If not, do so and listen closely to the story Miller tells about IRCAM and Max.

Ciao

Frank Barknecht _ ______footils.org_ __goto10.org__

---

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

Patrick Pagano, B.S., M.F.A Digital Media Specialist University of Florida Digital Worlds Institute 352-294-2082

I am imagining a small "yes you can study here" sort of a market. A narrow market, but they can spend a lot. I'm more concerned about being told I can't distribute my stuff than I am about the University making money from it. Since you put it that way, though, as far as the graphical environment, I suppose that's no different than owning a program written in Java.

Our school's music director replied: "UArts currently has no stated policy on copyright/patent ownership of student or faculty work. One was being developed a few years ago, but it has not been implemented (and that version actually had students and faculty retaining all rights to their creations)."

(is it wrong to post his words?) He is devoted to understanding copyright, too. Anyway, I take it any rule there is must be along the lines of the poetry contest rule, where they are allowed one publishing but the copyright never changes.

Thanks, Chuckk

On 9/13/05, Greg Wilder greg@gregwilder.com wrote:

On Tue, 2005-09-13 at 13:33 -0400, Chuckk Hubbard wrote:

...

But then someone told me today about some fine print clause somewhere that says University of the Arts owns anything someone creates while they're here.

I doubt *very* seriously if this is true.

...

Luckily, since no one here understands either the tuning systems or the inner workings of a PD patch, them knowing what I had in mind doesn't help them if they don't actually have it.

And how would it help them anyway? What sort of market do you imagine for what you're trying to create?

...

So what I'm wondering is, is there such a thing as ownership with a PD patch?

PD is an graphical object oriented programming environment. If you create a "patch" in PD, you're really building a unique program using the PD objects and interface. While you can't "own" PD, I would think that you can certainly claim ownership of your unique implementation of the environment that PD provides.

Kinda like making music using Ardour or Hydrogen - you own the music, even if you didn't create the original sound libraries and the program code. Or better yet - you could think of it like coding inside an IDE.

Best, Greg