On Sep 29, 2011, at 12:38 AM, Marvin Humphrey wrote:
On Wed, Sep 28, 2011 at 11:00:21AM -0400, Hans-Christoph Steiner
wrote:
As the maintainer and main author of the pd-extended.git, I will you
give you my assurance that the code under pd-extended.git is under
a BSD
license. That repo is a fork of the pure-data.git repo of Miller,
it is
largely intended as way to develop and feed patches to the upstream
pure-data.git, and as Matju pointed out, the only license statement
in
pd-extended.git is Miller's BSD one from pure-data git.
Thanks, Hans. Given your constraints, I can't think of a way to
improve upon
this setup.
It seems wise that you keep the satellite libraries in a seperate
repository
from the core -- that makes it more difficult for code to wander
where it
shouldn't or for tight bonds to form.
Of course it would be ideal if there was only one core repository,
not the
least because it seems like a lot of work for you to maintain the
fork in the
manner that you do -- but it is apparent why that is not feasible.
License proliferation is a costly problem, both in the open source
world at
large and within the microcosm of this one project.
In my opinion, using GPLv3 has been the easiest of the options. It
means that we can use code that is licensed with a BSD, MIT, Tcl,
Apache, GPLv2, LGPL, GPLv3, etc.. So its the most compatible to the
code that's out there, meaning thinking about licenses less writing
more code that everyone is free to use :)
.hc
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
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
_______________________________________________
Pd-list@iem.at mailing list
UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management ->
http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
