Hans-Christoph Steiner wrote: > On Jan 28, 2008, at 3:45 AM, Frank Barknecht wrote: > >> Hallo, >> Damian Stewart hat gesagt: // 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. >> Pd isn't GPL, so even if patches were derived from it, you'd be fine >> in that regard. > > Most externals are GPL'ed (and therefore Pd-extended too), so there > you have to watch.
does this mean it makes a difference if I use a library from within pd-extended or install it myself? from my understanding GPL is more restrictive than the Pd license (BSD). because it forces me to publish whatever I create under GPL again. does working with a library that is gpl force me to open source my pd patch? is a pd patch a derived software at all? and if yes, which are the libraries that can be used without problems? marius. _______________________________________________ PD-list@iem.at mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
