On Oct 12, 2011, at 5:42 PM, Jonathan Wilkes wrote:
----- Original Message -----
From: Hans-Christoph Steiner <[email protected]>
To: Mathieu Bouchard <[email protected]>
Cc: Pd List <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, October 12, 2011 4:00 PM
Subject: Re: [PD] pd-extended license WAS: Keyboard shortcuts for
"nudge", "done editing"
On Oct 6, 2011, at 5:58 PM, Mathieu Bouchard wrote:
Le 2011-09-28 à 10:35:00, Hans-Christoph Steiner a écrit :
In the case of a GPL project including a BSD code, there is not a
separate license. Only the copyright holder can change the
license. It is just
that the BSD license allows you to add additional restrictions.
The GPL adds
one restriction: whenever you give someone the software, you have
to also give
them the source code.
GPL also adds the restriction of not adding any additional
restrictions,
and that's a restriction by itself (I'm not saying that it's good or
bad).
It can also be counted as several additional restrictions,
depending on the
way one reads it.
So if you were going to include Pd-extended in your OS as a
whole, you
have to treat all the code as GPLv3. list-abs is a library
included in
Pd-extended. It is released under a BSD license. If you download
list-abs by
itself and package that, then it is not Pd-extended. So its BSD.
If someone includes Pd-extended as a whole in their OS, and modify
BSD
externals, while keeping them bundled with the rest of Pd-extended,
they
don't have to distribute the source to those modifications, despite
your
claim that Pd-extended has a license « as a whole ». That person
doesn't
have to take anything apart (debundle) or whatever.
The « as a whole » concept has a more limited applicability than
what you
seem to be claiming.
There are many examples of software that includes code that has
many different
licenese. ffmpeg/libav is an example. It not only gives you ./
configure flags
to support different licenses, but also includes non-free code,
that when linked
together into a binary is not legal to distribute.
Perhaps in theory this is bad. Then there is theory and there is
practice.
I'll bet there are many people who are glad to be able to compile
this
non-free ffmpeg, because once they have the binary it will be able
to do things
that the free ffmpeg cannot.
Wait a second-- didn't you decide not to include some external that
Yves authored
which had a clause that made it nonfree? If so, then why are you
arguing from the
practicality angle for another software package?
But those two questions are for curiosity's sake-- they are
irrelevant to the discussion
at hand because all the licenses we're talking about are free
software licenses. It's
simply a matter of whether one ought to say GPLv3 as a whole or that
the core of
Pd-extended is GPL3, and that there are various free licenses for
the external libraries.
(Well, there's also the issue of GPLv2 or later vs GPLv2 only, but
we've completed
the discussion for that one.)
Building ffmpeg as non-free means the binaries cannot be
redistributed. The vast majority of Pd users want to download
binaries, not build their own. They are free to download pidip and
use it with Pd-extended under the terms of the pidip license.
If someone wants to maintain some kind of configuration that deals
with pidip's restrictive license, they are free to do so, like they
did with ffmpeg. I have zero interest in spending my time doing that.
.hc
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
kill your television
_______________________________________________
[email protected] mailing list
UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management ->
http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
