Was PD previously under GPL? I published my Pd patch together with copies of Pd, zexy, cyclone, and toxy, and the only license file I could find in my Pd folder was GPL. I meant this in exactly the sense you are saying, but I wasn't aware Pd was under the Berkley License.
So after software has been released under a license, it is possible to retroactively change the license? Sounds strange to me.
-Chuckk
On 3/27/07, Mike McGonagle mjmogo@gmail.com wrote:
I don't think that CSound is more Open that PD, as I believe that Miller has released PD under the Berkley License, which is far more open than the GNU license, it doesn't require any kind of adherance to any sort of policy, you can use it for whatever purposes you see fit, even commercial...
http://www-crca.ucsd.edu/~msp/Software/LICENSE.txt
Mike
On 3/27/07, Chuckk Hubbard badmuthahubbard@gmail.com wrote:
I believe Csound is under LGPL, and if I understand correctly the main difference is that people who use parts of it in commercial applications are not required to keep their source open. Someone else will know better, but to my understanding that makes Csound more open than Pd.
-Chuckk
On 3/28/07, padawan12 padawan12@obiwannabe.co.uk wrote:
I'd love to hear work that comes out of a combination of Csound and Pd I think both are great, just different.
Something I feel very strongly about though, are there still 'licensing issues' with Csound or has it shaken off all it's encumberances and become a totally free OS codebase?
On Tue, 27 Mar 2007 13:23:29 -0400 "Chuckk Hubbard" badmuthahubbard@gmail.com wrote:
On 3/27/07, IOhannes m zmoelnig zmoelnig@iem.at wrote:
Chuckk Hubbard wrote:
Pd people continue to ignore Csound, and Csound people continue to ignore Pd, despite the great power of combining them. I can't help feeling like this is a symptom of being more interested in some intellectual problem than in using all of the available tools to make music. Not seeing the forest for the trees, in a way.
this is somewhat true, but ignores the fact that Pd is well established _outside_ the computer music community too.
you cannot expect dsp-engineers developping the latest-and-greatest binaural rendering system to get into csound. (but they do use Pd)
Fair enough. Csound is indeed audiocentric, as am I. I just know Csound has already implemented HRTF, and exists as a PD object, which I thought the poster wanted. If his interest is in pulling an abstraction apart to see how it works, then Csound probably isn't the easiest way. As far as computer music, it's true that I come across few people who are active on both lists, and occasional disparaging remarks about one or the other. I guess the best thing for me to do in that case is to try to show some of the great things that can come from the combination, rather than complaining about negativity.
-Chuckk
-- http://www.badmuthahubbard.com
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
-- http://www.badmuthahubbard.com
PD-list@iem.at mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
-- Help the Environment, Plant a Bush back in Texas!
"I place economy among the first and most important republican virtues, and public debt as the greatest of the dangers to be feared. To preserve our independence, we must not let our rulers load us with perpetual debt." -- Thomas Jefferson, third US president, architect and author (1743-1826)
"Give Peace a Chance" -- John Lennon (9 October 1940 – 8 December 1980)
Peace may sound simple—one beautiful word— but it requires everything we have, every quality, every strength, every dream, every high ideal. —Yehudi Menuhin (1916–1999), musician
On Tue, Mar 27, 2007 at 08:37:46PM -0400, Chuckk Hubbard wrote:
Was PD previously under GPL?
No.
So after software has been released under a license, it is possible to retroactively change the license? Sounds strange to me.
If you are the copyright holder, you can do whatever you want. In some cases it's very difficult to change the license. For example if there are many copyright holders, like the Linux kernel, you must get them all to agree. Although recently Bruce Perens posted an interesting article saying that this wasn't entirely true - Linus could state that he wished to change the license, and then just change the minds of those who disagreed with the move. He would not have to get every developer, including the dead ones, to state their agreement - silence would be taken as assent.
One interesting and not-very-often-mentioned repercussion of this is that you can dual license your own software. For example, I can license my library GPL so that any changes to it must also be GPL, but I can also sell the exact same library to a company under a different, proprietary license if that company doesn't want to adhere to the GPL. That is completely legal, and I think it was what Trolltech did with Qt.
Note that if you retroactively changed your GPL licensed software to be non-GPL licensed, people could still fork the code at the last point that it was licensed GPL and continue developing as before.
Best,
Chris.
chris@mccormick.cx http://mccormick.cx
On 3/28/07, Chris McCormick chris@mccormick.cx wrote:
On Tue, Mar 27, 2007 at 08:37:46PM -0400, Chuckk Hubbard wrote:
Was PD previously under GPL?
No.
Frank explained to me that Pd-extended is under GPL. I have to go back and revise the package I created, if only to add the Berkley license info. I'm pretty sure I didn't actually use the executable that was with Pd-extended.
So if version 0.5 is available under BSD license, and the author later decides to go GPL, could they replace vs 0.5 on sourceforge with an exact copy except with a different license.txt? And if someone then downloaded that same software, aware that it was BSD, and violated GPL thinking it was still BSD... A moot point anyway. I swear I looked once and saw GPL for Pd, but I guess it was Pd-extended. Suffice to say Csound is LGPL and AFAIK completely open.
-Chuckk
Chuckk Hubbard wrote:
On 3/28/07, Chris McCormick chris@mccormick.cx wrote:
On Tue, Mar 27, 2007 at 08:37:46PM -0400, Chuckk Hubbard wrote:
Was PD previously under GPL?
No.
Frank explained to me that Pd-extended is under GPL. I have to go back and revise the package I created, if only to add the Berkley license info. I'm pretty sure I didn't actually use the executable that was with Pd-extended.
So if version 0.5 is available under BSD license, and the author later decides to go GPL, could they replace vs 0.5 on sourceforge with an exact copy except with a different license.txt? And if someone then downloaded that same software, aware that it was BSD, and violated GPL thinking it was still BSD...
once a package is released under a certain license (well, if the packager has the right to release under this very license), everybody who got hold of the package under this license can do whatever they want according to the license they got.
so: if you release v0.5 under BSD-license but then change your mind and replace the BSD-license with a GPL, the package would be double licensed: anybody can chose which of the 2 licenses they want. (deleting the version with the BSD-license from sourceforge does not mean that the BSD-license does not apply to the package shipped with that license anymore).
they cannot violate the GPL, as they have a package versioned under BSD. (it's basically the same mechanism that chris has explained in this earlier email)
A moot point anyway. I swear I looked once and saw GPL for Pd, but I guess it was Pd-extended.
must have been.
the BSD license is so open that you can even distribute such software under GPL (this is what pd-extended does).
mfg.asdr IOhannes
-
Chris McCormick -
Chuckk Hubbard -
IOhannes m zmoelnig