Damian Stewart wrote: > then there's the question of whether any and all Pd patches are 'derived > works' (derived from Pd) or '[a combination of] two modules into one > program' and therefore need to be GPL.
No. The GPL only applies when distributing compiled binaries, as far as I'm aware. .pd files are as much derived from Pd as a .py file is derived from a Python interpreter or a binary from a compiler (a compiler is a tool for creating binaries, which are derived works of their source, not the compiler). Pd's linking is at runtime, you can distribute a collection containing GPL externals. and otherly licensed stuff, because they aren't linked together until you run it. The output from a GPL program cannot be licenced (eg, it would be a nonsense for (LGPL) GCC to force all C programs it compiles to be (L)GPL). What you can do is license a particular recording - I license my patches under GPL, and time-consuming renders under CC license (but anyone who bothered to re-render could use the output as they wished, as far as I understand). BTW, this is from my fuzzy understanding of GPL2, v3 might be different. Also, Pd isn't GPL. Claude -- http://claudiusmaximus.goto10.org _______________________________________________ [email protected] mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
