On Tue, Sep 27, 2011 at 12:14:00PM -0400, Hans-Christoph Steiner wrote: > Pd-extended as a whole is under the GPLv3, that's the easiest way to > think about it. Some sections of it are under the BSD License, some > under the Tcl License (which Pd was originally), some under GPLv2, etc. > > My personal thoughts on the license of what is in pd-extended.git are > more vague. Yes, the intention is for much/most of that code to > contributed back to Pd, but my only distribution of the whole thing is > part of the Pd-extended package, which is GPLv3. So if you want to be > sure, consider it GPLv3.
OK, then: Since "Pd-extended as a whole is under the GPLv3", if I ever supply a patch against Pd-extended.git, I must assume that the GPLv3 applies to it if I "want to be sure". It sounds as though if I want to avoid producing GPLv3 code, I need to steer a wide berth around Pd-extended. Also, it sounds as though "if you want to be sure", no code which was ever derived from Pd-extended can ever be merged upstream into Vanilla without violating the GPL. If I can't "be sure" that other Pd contributors won't claim that the GPL applies to contributions I'm making that are intended for the Vanilla's BSD core, that makes it a lot less attractive to contribute to this project. Marvin Humphrey _______________________________________________ Pd-list@iem.at mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list