On 2016-05-10 17:19, IOhannes m zmölnig wrote: > On 05/10/2016 04:38 PM, Roman Haefeli wrote: > >> * the GPL'd externals as binary with their source code and License >> * my closed-source patch > > inal, but i sincerely hope that this is a violation of the GPL. > (though i'm afraid that this is a bit fuzzy, and there might be some > loopholes or even larger holes to allow this).
ah, here is a reference: http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#IfInterpreterIsGPL which states very clearly, that the license of the interpreter (in our case: Pd's BSD license) has no effect on the license of the programs (your patch). however, if your interpreted program (patch) uses bindings to other facilities (an external) covered by the GPL, then your program must be released in a GPL-compatible way. fgmasdr IOhannes
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ [email protected] mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> https://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
