That's not the problem. The problem is, that the current Percolate license is not a free software license. Non-free licenses are incompatible with the GPL, which flext uses. By distributing a version of Percolate externals using their current license built with GPL-flext you would be violating the GPL! So you are not allowed to distribute your flext-Percolate ATM.
Please pardon my ignorance, but will this be the case even if I distribute the ported code as source-only (assuming that I get a permission to do so from the original authors)? Also, how does this affect Stk+flext, since Stk's license is not GPL either?
Best wishes,
Ico
Hallo, Ivica Ico Bukvic hat gesagt: // Ivica Ico Bukvic wrote:
That's not the problem. The problem is, that the current Percolate license is not a free software license. Non-free licenses are incompatible with the GPL, which flext uses. By distributing a version of Percolate externals using their current license built with GPL-flext you would be violating the GPL! So you are not allowed to distribute your flext-Percolate ATM.
Please pardon my ignorance, but will this be the case even if I distribute the ported code as source-only (assuming that I get a permission to do so from the original authors)?
I'm not a lawyer, but as I understand it, source or binary doesn't matter: As long as you distribute a flext-external, source or binary, you have to distribute it as GPL. This is impossible without violating either the Percolate license or the GPL, because both are incompatible: the Percolate license isn't a free license.
Also, how does this affect Stk+flext, since Stk's license is not GPL either?
The Stk-license is perfectly compatible with the GPL, it's almost a public domain license and doesn't try to restrict use and distributiom in a way, as Percolate's license does. So there are no problems linking flext and stk.
Ciao
Frank Barknecht _ ______footils.org_ __goto10.org__
On Wed, Mar 07, 2007 at 03:42:33PM +0100, Frank Barknecht wrote:
Hallo, Ivica Ico Bukvic hat gesagt: // Ivica Ico Bukvic wrote:
That's not the problem. The problem is, that the current Percolate license is not a free software license. Non-free licenses are incompatible with the GPL, which flext uses. By distributing a version of Percolate externals using their current license built with GPL-flext you would be violating the GPL! So you are not allowed to distribute your flext-Percolate ATM.
Please pardon my ignorance, but will this be the case even if I distribute the ported code as source-only (assuming that I get a permission to do so from the original authors)?
I'm not a lawyer, but as I understand it, source or binary doesn't matter: As long as you distribute a flext-external, source or binary, you have to distribute it as GPL. This is impossible without violating either the Percolate license or the GPL, because both are incompatible: the Percolate license isn't a free license.
It would be good to find out what the legal status of code that is illegally licensed. We've had this issue before with the not-for-military-use clause that Yves added to his software, rendering it technically illegal. A lawyer could tell us if it's a) in legal limbo land where nobody is legally allowed to use it b) defaults to public domain c) something else weird.
Chris.
chris@mccormick.cx http://mccormick.cx
Chris McCormick wrote:
It would be good to find out what the legal status of code that is illegally licensed.
the default is that software is copyright protected. and the owner has the exclusive right to reproduce, sell, license it. there are some exceptions to this rule, but I think not in this case.
marius.
On Wed, Mar 07, 2007 at 11:36:11PM -0500, marius schebella wrote:
Chris McCormick wrote:
It would be good to find out what the legal status of code that is illegally licensed.
the default is that software is copyright protected. and the owner has the exclusive right to reproduce, sell, license it.
Yes of course. But if they are linking with GPL software there are some restrictions as to what they can do with their own copyright code. Sure, they can reproduce, sell, and license their own code, but they cannot include the GPL software with that if they are violating the terms of the GPL. They cannot license their own copyright code with a license that violates the GPL if they are using GPL code linked to their own code.
What does it mean if they violate the GPL and do so anyway? What does it mean for people who use the software?
It's confusing, which is why a real lawyer is needed to answer these questions.
Best,
Chris.
chris@mccormick.cx http://mccormick.cx
Chris McCormick wrote:
What does it mean if they violate the GPL and do so anyway? What does it mean for people who use the software?
the problem is, that asking this questions is not as simple (i think, being no lawyer myself).
it is rather: what does it mean to ... in the US? what does it meant to ... in austria? what does it meant to ... in germany? and so forth.
(there probably (but who knows...) will be little differences between the austrian and german legal state, but i am pretty sure that there will be major differences between the anglo-american and the european way. (and other ways too, but about these i know even less)
It's confusing, which is why a real lawyer is needed to answer these questions.
this is why it would require a host of lawyers. and that is the fun part of all this.
things are certainly better in CreativeCommons (among other things because they are less u.s.-centric than the FSF).
mfgasd.r IOhannes
On Mar 8, 2007, at 5:14 AM, IOhannes m zmoelnig wrote:
Chris McCormick wrote:
What does it mean if they violate the GPL and do so anyway? What
does it mean for people who use the software?the problem is, that asking this questions is not as simple (i think, being no lawyer myself).
it is rather: what does it mean to ... in the US? what does it meant to ... in austria? what does it meant to ... in germany? and so forth.
(there probably (but who knows...) will be little differences between the austrian and german legal state, but i am pretty sure that there will be major differences between the anglo-american and the european way. (and other ways too, but about these i know even less)
I think that they are not as big as you'd guess because there are
international treaties that are all about making these laws work in
the same ways across borders. Copyright, patents, and trademarks act
quite similarly in all countries that participate in these treaties
(which is most).
It's confusing, which is why a real lawyer is needed to answer these questions.
this is why it would require a host of lawyers. and that is the fun part of all this.
things are certainly better in CreativeCommons (among other things because they are less u.s.-centric than the FSF).
Hmm, that's debatable. They don't have a license without an
attribution clause, it's not even an option. And the CC attribution
clause is much worse than the BSD attribution clause ever was.
.hc
mfgasd.r IOhannes
PD-list@iem.at mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> http://lists.puredata.info/ listinfo/pd-list
http://at.or.at/hans/
Hans-Christoph Steiner wrote:
will be major differences between the anglo-american and the european way. (and other ways too, but about these i know even less)
I think that they are not as big as you'd guess because there are
international treaties that are all about making these laws work in
the same ways across borders. Copyright, patents, and trademarks act
quite similarly in all countries that participate in these treaties
(which is most).
not quite true. (i'd say it is an anglo-centristic viewpoint ;-)) after all, in anglo-american space we have to deal with "copyright" whereas in continental europe we still have the "urheberrecht" which is something really different.
things are certainly better in CreativeCommons (among other things because they are less u.s.-centric than the FSF).
Hmm, that's debatable. They don't have a license without an
attribution clause, it's not even an option. And the CC attribution
clause is much worse than the BSD attribution clause ever was.
yes i agree here. i was just trying to say that the creative commons is much more "court-proof" in different countries since it has been adapted to really fit within the legislature of these.
the GPL never had anything but the u.s.-american copyright law in mind, which makes it not necesserarily fit for other countries. i do not say that the GPL is bad or futile in europe, it is the license i use...
mfg.asdr IOhannes
IOhannes m zmoelnig schreef:
not quite true. (i'd say it is an anglo-centristic viewpoint ;-)) after all, in anglo-american space we have to deal with "copyright" whereas in continental europe we still have the "urheberrecht" which is something really different.
copyright is the english (language) equivalent of urheberrecht. there's no difference. this is an area everybody typically has a strong opinion about. sadly this opinion is mostly based on severe misconceptions.
m
On Fri, 2007-03-09 at 19:52 +0100, mik wrote:
copyright is the english (language) equivalent of urheberrecht. there's no difference.
there is a difference in concept, it is not just a translation. read more on http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright .
roman
___________________________________________________________ Der frühe Vogel fängt den Wurm. Hier gelangen Sie zum neuen Yahoo! Mail: http://mail.yahoo.de
I don't think "copyright" is the same as urheberrecht. I would rather compare it to authorship. the copyright goes always to the "owner". for example, when you work for a big Pd company and your boss says, write a pd patch for that exhibition, than you would be the author, but since that would be considered a "work for hire", your boss would have the copyright. in europe this is slightly different, because as the author/urheber you have some default rights on your work, which you maybe do not have in the US. some general rules about the us copyright: copyright protects creative output, (compositions, lyrics, expressions, also gestures, lighting.....) but not ideas or facts. the important thing is always sufficiant creativity. it protects the copyright holder against unauthorized reproduction, display, performance, or derivative works. (of course this is only the short version.) one speciality for example is the "joined work", when several people work as a group on an artwork and you cannot split up the whole thing, then everybody would have the right to grant rights, but not "exclusive rights", which can only be granted, when all participants of the group agree on that... anyway, the biggest discussions in the US at the moment are about "fair use". lat's talk about that another time. marius.
mik wrote:
copyright is the english (language) equivalent of urheberrecht. there's no difference. this is an area everybody typically has a strong opinion about. sadly this opinion is mostly based on severe misconceptions.
m
yes, okay, urheberrecht seems to be a particular case, only applicable in germany. but on the whole most national copyright laws are very alike, since most countries have signed the convention of berne, and have the concept of moral rights, ie rights which never can be transferred. what you cite as the general rules of us copyright is the basis of almost any copyright law. the moral rights issue, however, seems not to be entirely resolved in the anglo-american parts of our planet, but in theory these countries should also protect these rights, as they have signed the berne convention.
pffff.
:)
m
marius schebella schreef:
I don't think "copyright" is the same as urheberrecht. I would rather compare it to authorship. the copyright goes always to the "owner". for example, when you work for a big Pd company and your boss says, write a pd patch for that exhibition, than you would be the author, but since that would be considered a "work for hire", your boss would have the copyright. in europe this is slightly different, because as the author/urheber you have some default rights on your work, which you maybe do not have in the US. some general rules about the us copyright: copyright protects creative output, (compositions, lyrics, expressions, also gestures, lighting.....) but not ideas or facts. the important thing is always sufficiant creativity. it protects the copyright holder against unauthorized reproduction, display, performance, or derivative works. (of course this is only the short version.) one speciality for example is the "joined work", when several people work as a group on an artwork and you cannot split up the whole thing, then everybody would have the right to grant rights, but not "exclusive rights", which can only be granted, when all participants of the group agree on that... anyway, the biggest discussions in the US at the moment are about "fair use". lat's talk about that another time. marius.
mik wrote:
copyright is the english (language) equivalent of urheberrecht. there's no difference. this is an area everybody typically has a strong opinion about. sadly this opinion is mostly based on severe misconceptions.
m
PD-list@iem.at mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
To be pedantic, the French droit d'auteur is very similar to
urheberrecht, so there are other countries with different systems. I
think we are basically on the same page. For the average person
there is basically no noticeable difference between these systems,
it's really just a question of the legal mechanisms used rather than
the effects.
.hc
On Mar 11, 2007, at 3:29 PM, mik wrote:
yes, okay, urheberrecht seems to be a particular case, only applicable in germany. but on the whole most national copyright laws are very alike, since most countries have signed the convention of berne, and have the concept of moral rights, ie rights which never can be transferred. what you cite as the general rules of us copyright is the basis of almost any copyright law. the moral rights issue, however, seems not to be entirely resolved in the anglo-american parts of our planet, but in theory these countries should also protect these
rights, as they have signed the berne convention.pffff.
:)
m
marius schebella schreef:
I don't think "copyright" is the same as urheberrecht. I would rather compare it to authorship. the copyright goes always to the
"owner". for example, when you work for a big Pd company and your boss says,
write a pd patch for that exhibition, than you would be the author, but since that would be considered a "work for hire", your boss would have the copyright. in europe this is slightly different, because as the author/ urheber you have some default rights on your work, which you maybe do not have in the US. some general rules about the us copyright: copyright protects creative output, (compositions, lyrics,
expressions, also gestures, lighting.....) but not ideas or facts. the important thing is always sufficiant creativity. it protects the copyright holder against unauthorized reproduction, display, performance, or derivative works. (of course this is only
the short version.) one speciality for example is the "joined work", when several people work as a group on an artwork and you cannot split up the whole
thing, then everybody would have the right to grant rights, but not
"exclusive rights", which can only be granted, when all participants of the
group agree on that... anyway, the biggest discussions in the US at the moment are about
"fair use". lat's talk about that another time. marius.mik wrote:
copyright is the english (language) equivalent of urheberrecht.
there's no difference. this is an area everybody typically has a strong opinion about.
sadly this opinion is mostly based on severe misconceptions.m
PD-list@iem.at mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> http://lists.puredata.info/ listinfo/pd-list
--
PD-list@iem.at mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> http://lists.puredata.info/ listinfo/pd-list
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
Hans-Christoph Steiner schreef:
To be pedantic, the French droit d'auteur is very similar to urheberrecht, so there are other countries with different systems. I think we are basically on the same page. For the average person there is basically no noticeable difference between these systems, it's really just a question of the legal mechanisms used rather than the effects.
.hc
it probably is, as is the belgian, which i am mainly talking about, all eu members have the same regulations to adhere to, after all, but the german system seemed a bit more strict to me, at first glance. it's the inalienablity of certain rights which seems to make the difference (between the us and the rest). the question is: does the berne convention precede national law?
ssssssorry: way OT. that question is one ask myself. this is not the place to continue discussing about it.
m
On Mar 9, 2007, at 3:04 AM, IOhannes m zmoelnig wrote:
Hans-Christoph Steiner wrote:
will be major differences between the anglo-american and the
european way. (and other ways too, but about these i know even less)I think that they are not as big as you'd guess because there are international treaties that are all about making these laws work in the same ways across borders. Copyright, patents, and trademarks act quite similarly in all countries that participate in these treaties (which is most).
not quite true. (i'd say it is an anglo-centristic viewpoint ;-)) after all, in anglo-american space we have to deal with "copyright" whereas in continental europe we still have the "urheberrecht"
which is something really different.
The mechanisms is different, but the functions are largely the same.
For example, "Fair Use" with copyright is determined more by court
rulings in the U.S. while I think that Urheberrecht/droit d'auteur
codifies it as the right to quote.
As for GPL in the German courts, it has been tested, and the GPL was
legal and enforced:
http://gpl-violations.org/news/20060922-dlink-judgement_frankfurt.html
.hc
things are certainly better in CreativeCommons (among other things because they are less u.s.-centric than the FSF).
Hmm, that's debatable. They don't have a license without an attribution clause, it's not even an option. And the CC attribution clause is much worse than the BSD attribution clause ever was.
yes i agree here. i was just trying to say that the creative commons is much more "court-proof" in different countries since it has been adapted to
really fit within the legislature of these.the GPL never had anything but the u.s.-american copyright law in
mind, which makes it not necesserarily fit for other countries. i do not say that the GPL is bad or futile in europe, it is the
license i use...mfg.asdr IOhannes
Man has survived hitherto because he was too ignorant to know how to
realize his wishes. Now that he can realize them, he must either
change them, or perish. -William Carlos Williams
ola,
It would be good to find out what the legal status of code that is illegally licensed. We've had this issue before with the not-for-military-use clause that Yves added to his software, rendering it technically illegal. A lawyer could tell us if it's a) in legal limbo land where nobody is legally allowed to use it b) defaults to public domain c) something else weird.
in fact, i'm glad of considering my software 'illegal' when you see what the 'law' ( mainly american ) and the OMC are able to achieve with tricks.
saludos, sevy
sad, but you're absolutely right. marius.
Yves Degoyon wrote:
ola,
It would be good to find out what the legal status of code that is illegally licensed. We've had this issue before with the not-for-military-use clause that Yves added to his software, rendering it technically illegal. A lawyer could tell us if it's a) in legal limbo land where nobody is legally allowed to use it b) defaults to public domain c) something else weird.
in fact, i'm glad of considering my software 'illegal' when you see what the 'law' ( mainly american ) and the OMC are able to achieve with tricks.
saludos, sevy
PD-list@iem.at mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
I think this is what is called "selective perception". Nobody said that it's generally illegal, like nothing is. all the best, Thomas
marius schebella schrieb:
sad, but you're absolutely right. marius.
Yves Degoyon wrote:
ola,
It would be good to find out what the legal status of code that is illegally licensed. We've had this issue before with the not-for-military-use clause that Yves added to his software, rendering it technically illegal. A lawyer could tell us if it's a) in legal limbo land where nobody is legally allowed to use it b) defaults to public domain c) something else weird.
in fact, i'm glad of considering my software 'illegal' when you see what the 'law' ( mainly american ) and the OMC are able to achieve with tricks.
saludos, sevy
PD-list@iem.at mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
PD-list@iem.at mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
I wanted to say it is sad, that law does never cover all possibilities, and sometimes even protects illegal behavior. marius.
Thomas Grill wrote:
I think this is what is called "selective perception". Nobody said that it's generally illegal, like nothing is. all the best, Thomas
marius schebella schrieb:
sad, but you're absolutely right. marius.
Yves Degoyon wrote:
ola,
It would be good to find out what the legal status of code that is illegally licensed. We've had this issue before with the not-for-military-use clause that Yves added to his software, rendering it technically illegal. A lawyer could tell us if it's a) in legal limbo land where nobody is legally allowed to use it b) defaults to public domain c) something else weird.
in fact, i'm glad of considering my software 'illegal' when you see what the 'law' ( mainly american ) and the OMC are able to achieve with tricks.
saludos, sevy
PD-list@iem.at mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
PD-list@iem.at mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
On Thu, Mar 08, 2007 at 03:05:53PM +0100, Yves Degoyon wrote:
It would be good to find out what the legal status of code that is illegally licensed. We've had this issue before with the not-for-military-use clause that Yves added to his software, rendering it technically illegal. A lawyer could tell us if it's a) in legal limbo land where nobody is legally allowed to use it b) defaults to public domain c) something else weird.
in fact, i'm glad of considering my software 'illegal' when you see what the 'law' ( mainly american ) and the OMC are able to achieve with tricks.
Yep, I understand and completely sympathise with this viewpoint. In my country (not the USA) there are some really really stupid and petty laws, and I know that some people have to break them on a weekly or daily basis just to live normally.
Just the other day the police department started a new television campaign called "Eyes on the street" who's logo is a giant pixellated eye. The advert says that there are people all around us, watching all the time to see if anything is wrong. They also have advertisements that have a cop pointing his finger at the camera saying "Watch out. If you do something wrong we will get you." At my university I saw one of these cars with a giant pixellated eye on the side, and I couldn't help laughing out loud.
I don't even know where to start protesting this; I can't even make a joke about it because it's so self parodying and ridiculous. Seems like everyone just writes a complaint in their blog instead of actually doing something.
Oh well. Time to move to Europe or Asia I guess.
Best,
Chris.
chris@mccormick.cx http://mccormick.cx
On 07/03/2007, at 15.42, Frank Barknecht wrote:
Hallo, Ivica Ico Bukvic hat gesagt: // Ivica Ico Bukvic wrote:
That's not the problem. The problem is, that the current Percolate license is not a free software license. Non-free licenses are incompatible with the GPL, which flext uses. By distributing a
version of Percolate externals using their current license built with GPL-flext you would be violating the GPL! So you are not allowed to distribute your flext-Percolate ATM.Please pardon my ignorance, but will this be the case even if I
distribute the ported code as source-only (assuming that I get a permission
to do so from the original authors)?I'm not a lawyer, but as I understand it, source or binary doesn't matter: As long as you distribute a flext-external, source or binary, you have to distribute it as GPL. This is impossible without violating either the Percolate license or the GPL, because both are incompatible: the Percolate license isn't a free license.
Regarding Flext in general and this: http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl- faq.html#MereAggregation
Is Flext based externals, which need be GPL externals, violating the
GPL when used as Max/MSP externals? If so, and if the GPL is not
violated when using the Flext based externals with Pd, then it makes
sense in my head to distinguish between binary and source wrt
violation against the GPL. But Flext might have a clause that catches
just that?
Is Flext based externals, which need be GPL externals, violating the
GPL when used as Max/MSP externals? If so, and if the GPL is not
violated when using the Flext based externals with Pd, then it makes
sense in my head to distinguish between binary and source wrt
violation against the GPL. But Flext might have a clause that catches
just that?
To my mind, flext-based Max externals would only violate the GPL, if they were shipped closed-source with Max. If the are GPL'd as well and installed by the user, i don't see why this should be a problem.
greetings, Thomas
On Thu, 2007-03-08 at 23:37 +0100, Thomas Grill wrote:
Is Flext based externals, which need be GPL externals, violating the
GPL when used as Max/MSP externals? If so, and if the GPL is not
violated when using the Flext based externals with Pd, then it makes
sense in my head to distinguish between binary and source wrt
violation against the GPL. But Flext might have a clause that catches
just that?To my mind, flext-based Max externals would only violate the GPL, if they were shipped closed-source with Max. If the are GPL'd as well and installed by the user, i don't see why this should be a problem.
although i don't really like this clause, the following description is quite clear: http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#GPLPluginsInNF
tim
-- tim@klingt.org ICQ: 96771783 http://tim.klingt.org
There's no such entity as "most people". These are generalities. All generalities are meaningless. You've got to pin it down to a specific person doing a specific thing at a specific time and space. William S. Burroughs
Am 09.03.2007 um 00:03 schrieb Tim Blechmann:
On Thu, 2007-03-08 at 23:37 +0100, Thomas Grill wrote:
Is Flext based externals, which need be GPL externals, violating the GPL when used as Max/MSP externals? If so, and if the GPL is not violated when using the Flext based externals with Pd, then it makes sense in my head to distinguish between binary and source wrt violation against the GPL. But Flext might have a clause that
catches just that?To my mind, flext-based Max externals would only violate the GPL, if they were shipped closed-source with Max. If the are GPL'd as well and installed by the user, i don't see
why this should be a problem.although i don't really like this clause, the following description is quite clear: http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#GPLPluginsInNF
I knew about this one, but i don't think that this is applicable if
there is no actual distribution of the non-GPLd program with GPLd
plugins.
I might be wrong, though. Anyway, i don't care much - if the GPL is
odd enough to violate against such usage i would consider a different
license. Idealism gone.
greetings, Thomas
-- Thomas Grill http://grrrr.org
On 3/8/07, Thomas Grill gr@grrrr.org wrote:
Am 09.03.2007 um 00:03 schrieb Tim Blechmann:
although i don't really like this clause, the following description is quite clear: http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#GPLPluginsInNF
I knew about this one, but i don't think that this is applicable if there is no actual distribution of the non-GPLd program with GPLd plugins. I might be wrong, though. Anyway, i don't care much - if the GPL is odd enough to violate against such usage i would consider a different license. Idealism gone.
Not to mention, that the GPL has never been rigorously tested in a court of law. At least in the United States, such matters are in something of a legal limbo, until the courts set precedents.
Interestingly, this identical issue came up on the ChucK list today. There is a [chuck~] external for max/msp, which it turns out probably violates the GPL.
Anyway, I'm all for the pragmatic approach as Thomas Grill has just expressed ... (Just like, if I decide I want to sample a Prince song tomorrow night, I'm going to do it, copyright laws be damned...!)
~David
On Mar 8, 2007, at 6:27 PM, David Powers wrote:
On 3/8/07, Thomas Grill gr@grrrr.org wrote:
Am 09.03.2007 um 00:03 schrieb Tim Blechmann:
although i don't really like this clause, the following
description is quite clear: http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#GPLPluginsInNFI knew about this one, but i don't think that this is applicable if there is no actual distribution of the non-GPLd program with GPLd plugins. I might be wrong, though. Anyway, i don't care much - if the GPL is odd enough to violate against such usage i would consider a different license. Idealism gone.
Not to mention, that the GPL has never been rigorously tested in a court of law. At least in the United States, such matters are in something of a legal limbo, until the courts set precedents.
While this is technically true, it's not really meaningful that no
one has gone to court over the GPL. The reason why is because
copyright license law is so clear and straightforward in regards to
the GPL that no one would be stupid enough to fight the FSF in
court. They would lose and just spend more money doing it.
The FSF actively enforces the GPL, getting lots of different sources
released (the Linksys firmware source is a good example). The FSF
has no reason to take anyone to court as long as they comply with the
license. So far everyone has.
.hc
Interestingly, this identical issue came up on the ChucK list today. There is a [chuck~] external for max/msp, which it turns out probably violates the GPL.
Anyway, I'm all for the pragmatic approach as Thomas Grill has just expressed ... (Just like, if I decide I want to sample a Prince song tomorrow night, I'm going to do it, copyright laws be damned...!)
~David
PD-list@iem.at mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> http://lists.puredata.info/ listinfo/pd-list
All information should be free. - the hacker ethic
Hallo, Hans-Christoph Steiner hat gesagt: // Hans-Christoph Steiner wrote:
On Mar 8, 2007, at 6:27 PM, David Powers wrote:
Not to mention, that the GPL has never been rigorously tested in a court of law. At least in the United States, such matters are in something of a legal limbo, until the courts set precedents.
While this is technically true, it's not really meaningful that no
one has gone to court over the GPL.
At least here in Germany the GPL *was* tested successfully in court last year: http://gpl-violations.org/news/20060922-dlink-judgement_frankfurt.html
Ciao
Frank Barknecht _ ______footils.org_ __goto10.org__
On Mar 11, 2007, at 12:19 PM, Frank Barknecht wrote:
Hallo, Hans-Christoph Steiner hat gesagt: // Hans-Christoph Steiner wrote:
On Mar 8, 2007, at 6:27 PM, David Powers wrote:
Not to mention, that the GPL has never been rigorously tested in a court of law. At least in the United States, such matters are in something of a legal limbo, until the courts set precedents.
While this is technically true, it's not really meaningful that no one has gone to court over the GPL.
At least here in Germany the GPL *was* tested successfully in court last year: http://gpl-violations.org/news/20060922-dlink-judgement_frankfurt.html
Yeah, I just saw that. D-Link was silly enough to take it to court.
Looks like they not only lost the case in court, but also had to pay
for all the legal expenses for both sides. It also sounds like the
the GPL people would have gotten damages too if they had requested it.
.hc
Ciao
Frank Barknecht _ ______footils.org_ __goto10.org__
PD-list@iem.at mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> http://lists.puredata.info/ listinfo/pd-list
I spent 33 years and four months in active military service and
during that period I spent most of my time as a high class muscle man
for Big Business, for Wall Street and the bankers. - General
Smedley Butler
On Fri, Mar 09, 2007 at 12:16:28AM +0100, Thomas Grill wrote:
Am 09.03.2007 um 00:03 schrieb Tim Blechmann:
On Thu, 2007-03-08 at 23:37 +0100, Thomas Grill wrote:
To my mind, flext-based Max externals would only violate the GPL, if they were shipped closed-source with Max. If the are GPL'd as well and installed by the user, i don't see
why this should be a problem.although i don't really like this clause, the following description is quite clear: http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#GPLPluginsInNF
I knew about this one, but i don't think that this is applicable if
there is no actual distribution of the non-GPLd program with GPLd
plugins.
Even if you are not distributing them together, when the user combines them they are doing something that is illegal with respect to the GPL. It's the same with running binary kernel modules with the Linux Kernel. Lots of people think it's ok, but it's technically illegal.
GPL v3 I think has better ways of allowing this. If your plugins are licensed "GPL v2 or later" then they will be able to take advantage of that. In any case, you have copyright of the software and hence you can change the license any time you wish, even to a commercial one (but somebody could fork the old GPL one).
I might be wrong, though. Anyway, i don't care much - if the GPL is
odd enough to violate against such usage i would consider a different
license. Idealism gone.
"However, you can resolve that legal problem by adding an exception to your plug-in's license, giving permission to link it with the non-free main program." -- http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#GPLPluginsInNF
Or you can use the LGPL which lets you link with non-free software, but still requires that if people modify your plugin code itself they must re-distribute their changes under the LGPL. This seems to be the best option for what you want to do (if you are still concerned with your users' freedom).
Best,
Chris.
chris@mccormick.cx http://mccormick.cx
On Mar 8, 2007, at 6:16 PM, Thomas Grill wrote:
Am 09.03.2007 um 00:03 schrieb Tim Blechmann:
On Thu, 2007-03-08 at 23:37 +0100, Thomas Grill wrote:
Is Flext based externals, which need be GPL externals, violating
the GPL when used as Max/MSP externals? If so, and if the GPL is not violated when using the Flext based externals with Pd, then it
makes sense in my head to distinguish between binary and source wrt violation against the GPL. But Flext might have a clause that catches just that?To my mind, flext-based Max externals would only violate the GPL, if they were shipped closed-source with Max. If the are GPL'd as well and installed by the user, i don't see why this should be a problem.
although i don't really like this clause, the following
description is quite clear: http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#GPLPluginsInNFI knew about this one, but i don't think that this is applicable if there is no actual distribution of the non-GPLd program with GPLd plugins. I might be wrong, though. Anyway, i don't care much - if the GPL is odd enough to violate against such usage i would consider a different license. Idealism gone.
Its a catch22 in the license, but it would only be a problem if the
copyright holder enforces it. If you are the copyright holder, and
you don't decide to enforce that particular part of the license, then
there is no other problem.
.hc
greetings, Thomas
-- Thomas Grill http://grrrr.org
PD-list@iem.at mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> http://lists.puredata.info/ listinfo/pd-list
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, Thomas Grill hat gesagt: // Thomas Grill wrote:
Am 09.03.2007 um 00:03 schrieb Tim Blechmann:
although i don't really like this clause, the following description is quite clear: http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#GPLPluginsInNF
I knew about this one, but i don't think that this is applicable if
there is no actual distribution of the non-GPLd program with GPLd
plugins.
You could always "resolve that legal problem by adding an exception to your plug-in's license, giving permission to link it with the non-free main program." [1]
I always assumed, that flext had such a clause, as obviously it is intended to be used with the non-free Max/MSP as well.
I might be wrong, though. Anyway, i don't care much - if the GPL is
odd enough to violate against such usage i would consider a different
license. Idealism gone.
Why is it odd, that the GPL does not permit linking GPL-binaries with closed-source programs as default? I think, it was one of the motivations of Stallman to make a clear cut between non-free and free software, because his original goal was to develop "a sufficient body of free software so that I will be able to get along without any software that is not free." [1] (If all that is a good idea, is another discussion, of course.)
[1] http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#GPLPluginsInNF [2] http://www.gnu.org/gnu/initial-announcement.html
Ciao
Frank Barknecht _ ______footils.org_ __goto10.org__
-
Chris McCormick -
David Powers -
Frank Barknecht -
Hans-Christoph Steiner -
IOhannes m zmoelnig -
Ivica Ico Bukvic -
marius schebella -
mik -
Roman Haefeli -
Steffen -
Thomas Grill -
Tim Blechmann -
Yves Degoyon