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