On Wed, 13 Feb 2002 11:43:30 +0100 Krzysztof Czaja czaja@chopin.edu.pl wrote:
what license would be the most appropriate for a `vexing' library of Pd externals, that I am going to release this week, and in which I use snippets from GPLed sfront, MITed Csound, and Pd? The code is either written from scratch, or completely rewritten, _but_ after careful reading of sfront, Csound, and Pd code -- and it shows.
does this kind of situation even get covered by these open source licenses? if it does then it sounds like a kind of automatic patent, which i'm pretty sure it isn't.
one thing i always found strange about these licences is that they really only cover the monkey-work of software engineering. i'm not sure if there is anything stopping a company from getting another monkey to 'reinterpret' some open source code and close the resulting project.
i have heard that it is possible to patent and algorithm and donate the patent to the FSF (who i assume will only allow use by GPL projects) - if the above were not possible this would never be necessary.
pix.
hi pix,
and thanks, you are right (I hope), but where is the dividing line? What is really the meaning of a derived work (in a moral sense, not legally)?
In my generator/ftable case, it is quite likely, that they are all based on some prior art, so I think I will simply use Pd license...
Krzysztof-who-pretends-to-be-a-decent-monkey-anyway
pix wrote: ...
one thing i always found strange about these licences is that they really only cover the monkey-work of software engineering. i'm not sure if there is anything stopping a company from getting another monkey to 'reinterpret' some open source code and close the resulting project.
On Wed, 13 Feb 2002 16:38:50 +0100 Krzysztof Czaja czaja@chopin.edu.pl wrote:
hi pix,
and thanks, you are right (I hope), but where is the dividing line? What is really the meaning of a derived work (in a moral sense, not legally)?
this is where you can probably get into lots of silly religious issues regarding the various open source licenses... the case doesn't even need to be as extreme as the situation where some redmond-based software company reinterprets some open source code into a proprietary product, but even when someone creates a product under the GPL, that is derived from some code that was originally under some other open source license... some people would think even this to be a moral outrage.
as for being right... it safest to assume that i am not, but i'll keep typing anyway :)
In my generator/ftable case, it is quite likely, that they are all based on some prior art, so I think I will simply use Pd license...
Krzysztof-who-pretends-to-be-a-decent-monkey-anyway
pix wrote: ...
one thing i always found strange about these licences is that they really only cover the monkey-work of software engineering. i'm not sure if there is anything stopping a company from getting another monkey to'reinterpret' some open source code and close the resulting project.