moved this thread to pd-ot. while licensing is an important issue in software-development, it is not necessarily a related to further pd development.
Hans-Christoph Steiner wrote:
Actually, it does work like that in this situation. PiDiP started with GNU GPL'ed code, therefore must remain GPL'ed. Yves could get
no. the code taken from effecTV has to remain GPL'ed (and everything that is directly based on it) quoting matju: "PiDiP could keep the GPL-incompatible license by replacing all of the GPL code by some other differently-licensed compatible non-derivative code."
permission from the effectv for a different license, then change the
that's the other option.
PiDiP license, but that would only affect future versions of PiDiP.
only half true. all versions of PiDiP which have been released _only_ under the GPL will stay GPL'ed forever (because they are already released)
however, i don't think that this does affect the versions of PiDiP that came with the double license. probably they are really undistributable, i don't know. but you cannot just assume that the GPL applies.
e.g. i am free to change the license of zexy to a EULA-monster. and while versions up to 2.1 will stay GPL'ed all future (from the time where any code is distributed with the new license) versions will by EULAed.
now the license of PiDiP has already changed. so the GPL does not (directly) apply to the current version.
but then i am no layer
mf.asdr. IOhannes
IOhannes m zmoelnig wrote:
Actually, it does work like that in this situation. PiDiP started with GNU GPL'ed code, therefore must remain GPL'ed. Yves could get
no. the code taken from effecTV has to remain GPL'ed (and everything that is directly based on it)
what i meant is, that _only_ the code taken from effecTV hadto remain under the GPL, unless the effecTV-team grants PiDiP a different licensing modell. this does not imply, that PiDiP has to remain GPL'ed (even if the effecTV-team does not allow to use a different license)
mf.asdr. IOhannes
On Jan 17, 2006, at 8:55 AM, IOhannes m zmoelnig wrote:
moved this thread to pd-ot. while licensing is an important issue in software-development, it is not necessarily a related to further pd development.
Hans-Christoph Steiner wrote:
Actually, it does work like that in this situation. PiDiP started with GNU GPL'ed code, therefore must remain GPL'ed. Yves could get
no. the code taken from effecTV has to remain GPL'ed (and everything that is directly based on it) quoting matju: "PiDiP could keep the GPL-incompatible license by replacing all of the GPL code by some other differently-licensed compatible non-derivative code."
Actually, yes. The GNU GPL doesn't just affect the code directly based on other GPL'ed code, it affects the whole software package. Check the GNU GPL FAQ:
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#GPLAndPlugins
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#LinkingWithGPL
permission from the effectv for a different license, then change the
that's the other option.
PiDiP license, but that would only affect future versions of PiDiP.
only half true. all versions of PiDiP which have been released _only_ under the GPL will stay GPL'ed forever (because they are already released)
however, i don't think that this does affect the versions of PiDiP that came with the double license. probably they are really undistributable, i don't know. but you cannot just assume that the GPL applies.
e.g. i am free to change the license of zexy to a EULA-monster. and while versions up to 2.1 will stay GPL'ed all future (from the time where any code is distributed with the new license) versions will by EULAed.
now the license of PiDiP has already changed. so the GPL does not (directly) apply to the current version.
but then i am no layer
Because of the rules of the GPL, there was never a point were PiDiP wasn't available under the GNU GPL. The BSD license with the added clause can not override the original GNU GPL. It can be offered as an alternate license to the GNU GPL as long as the complete sources are available under the terms of the GNU GPL.
Therefore all versions of PiDiP up til now are available under the GNU GPL. That could change in the future if the GPL'ed effectv code was removed.
.hc
________________________________________________________________________ ____
There is no way to peace, peace is the way. -A.J. Muste
Hallo, Hans-Christoph Steiner hat gesagt: // Hans-Christoph Steiner wrote:
Because of the rules of the GPL, there was never a point were PiDiP wasn't available under the GNU GPL. The BSD license with the added clause can not override the original GNU GPL. It can be offered as an alternate license to the GNU GPL as long as the complete sources are available under the terms of the GNU GPL.
Therefore all versions of PiDiP up til now are available under the GNU GPL. That could change in the future if the GPL'ed effectv code was removed.
Most files in Pidip are GPL according to comments in the source code. The "LICENSE.txt" does not apply to these anyway. Quote:
This software is copyrighted by Yves Degoyon and others. The following terms (the "Standard Improved BSD License") apply to all files associated with the software unless explicitly disclaimed in individual files:
It might also be important to note, that the "NOT FOR MILITARY OR REPRESSIVE USE !!!" restriction is written *before* above statement, which then say, that the "following terms" apply to the sources. So the former restriction might not apply at all. Rejoice, soliders and dictators!
Here are some quick greps for GPL info in the source:
(externals/pidip/modules) $ grep -L "GNU General Public License" * CVS Makefile Makefile.in pdp_aging.c~ pdp_colorgrid.c pdp_colorgrid.tk pdp_colorgrid.tk2c pdp_mp4audiosource.cpp pdp_mp4audiosync.cpp pdp_mp4config.cpp pdp_mp4playermedia.cpp pdp_mp4playersession.cpp pdp_mp4videosource.cpp pdp_mp4videosync.cpp tk2c.bash
(modules)-$ grep -l "GNU General Public License" * | wc -l 75 (modules)-$ grep -L "GNU General Public License" * | wc -l 15
Distributing a version with the 15 critical modules removed would be permitted.
BTW: PDP, on which Pidip relies, is GPL as well. While it may be possible to remove EffecTV from Pidip, it is not possible to remove the dependency on PDP.
Ciao
On Tue, 17 Jan 2006, Hans-Christoph Steiner wrote:
Because of the rules of the GPL, there was never a point were PiDiP wasn't available under the GNU GPL. The BSD license with the added clause can not override the original GNU GPL. It can be offered as an alternate license to the GNU GPL as long as the complete sources are available under the terms of the GNU GPL.
It's not provided as an alternate license because nowhere it is stated that the user may pick one of several licenses.
The program has to be clearly licensed under an umbrella license that lists all the alternatives. Not doing so and just providing two licenses is potentially a contradiction, which can be alleviated by assuming that both licenses apply at once, but then clause 4 of GPL forbids additional clauses under penalty of termination of license, therefore, this particular combination of licenses cancels itself and so PiDiP's license is the default "All Rights Reserved" with about a dozen authors involved in several different teams.
_ _ __ ___ _____ ________ _____________ _____________________ ... | Mathieu Bouchard - tél:+1.514.383.3801 - http://artengine.ca/matju | Freelance Digital Arts Engineer, Montréal QC Canada