On Thu, 2010-12-09 at 16:53 +0100, IOhannes m zmoelnig wrote: > On 2010-12-09 16:32, Hans-Christoph Steiner wrote: > > > > First off, I need to say I think Yves' code is great and very useful, > > and he's doing important work that no one else is currently doing. This > > has nothing to do with that. Yves changed his license to a non-free > > license, which he is free to do, but there are real effects to doing that: > > > > - SourceForge does not allow non-free code > > again, i'd suggest to wait till sf takes action. > > > - it cannot be legally distributed because the terms of each license are > > in conflict with each other (Yves' license vs GPL) > > then we should not distribute it. > > > - it cannot be included in Pd-extended, its GPLv3 > > i haven't checked closely, but i guess there are other parts of PdX that > would violate that as well. > i'm thinking of code that its GPLv2 without the "or any later version" > clause.
I have checked, quite a lot. Please let me know if you find something that is in Pd-extended that is not compatible with the GPLv3. > > Yves' license is in direct conflict with the GPL'ed code of others that > > is included in both pidip and unauthorized. So if you use it, either > > Yves or the other GPL'ed copyright holders can sue you for copyright > > violations. > > but this is not really a problem of the files being hosted. > it is a problem, if you distribute these libraries and tell people they > are safe (and the code is GPLv3, or whatelse) > > Yves has made his decision, and he said to remove his code > > (http://lists.puredata.info/pipermail/pd-list/2010-12/084998.html), so > > i interprete his statement as "please remove pidip/unauthorized from > Pd-extended" and not as "please remove my code from sourceforge". > even if it was the latter i'd ignore it, as yves has full access to the > repository and can remove the code himself (which he did not do; instead > he did something else: he changed the license in the repository, which > (for me) implies that he still thinks the repository of some relevance) He clearly says: "so yeh you can remove unauthorized and pidip from sourceforge" > > now we need to make ours. I'm not touching pidip anymore, so I'm fine > > with it staying in pure-data SVN or not. unauthorized was GPL until a > > few days ago, so I think we should maintain a clean GPL fork in the > > pure-data SVN. That means removing the non-free unauthorized. > > not at all. > if you want to fork unauthorized, then do a fork, and remove the > original code. > i'd suggest forking it under the name "authorized" :-) I don't want to do a fork at all. I want there to continue to be a free unauthorized. It seems to me the obvious place for this free unauthorized is right where the free unauthorized has always been: in pure-data SVN. Yves' said to remove his code, Yves' license is in conflict with SourceForge, Yves' license is not legally distributable, and the de facto status of the pure-data developers is that pure-data SVN has only free code (I know of no other non-free code in the pure-data SVN). .hc _______________________________________________ Pd-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-dev
