|Hans-Christoph Steiner||Dec 8, 2010 12:09 pm|
|Xavier Miller||Dec 8, 2010 12:37 pm|
|IOhannes m zmölnig||Dec 8, 2010 12:39 pm|
|Jonathan Wilkes||Dec 8, 2010 9:49 pm|
|IOhannes m zmoelnig||Dec 9, 2010 12:13 am|
|Sergi Lario||Dec 9, 2010 1:08 am|
|Roman Haefeli||Dec 9, 2010 1:41 am|
|Hans-Christoph Steiner||Dec 9, 2010 7:32 am|
|IOhannes m zmoelnig||Dec 9, 2010 7:53 am|
|Hans-Christoph Steiner||Dec 9, 2010 8:07 am|
|Subject:||Re: [PD-dev] removing non-free code from pure-data SVN|
|From:||IOhannes m zmoelnig (zmoe...@iem.at)|
|Date:||Dec 9, 2010 7:53:04 am|
On 2010-12-09 16:32, Hans-Christoph Steiner wrote:
First off, I need to say I think Yves' code is great and very useful, and he's doing important work that no one else is currently doing. This has nothing to do with that. Yves changed his license to a non-free license, which he is free to do, but there are real effects to doing that:
- SourceForge does not allow non-free code
again, i'd suggest to wait till sf takes action.
- it cannot be legally distributed because the terms of each license are in conflict with each other (Yves' license vs GPL)
then we should not distribute it.
- it cannot be included in Pd-extended, its GPLv3
i haven't checked closely, but i guess there are other parts of PdX that would violate that as well. i'm thinking of code that its GPLv2 without the "or any later version" clause.
Yves' license is in direct conflict with the GPL'ed code of others that is included in both pidip and unauthorized. So if you use it, either Yves or the other GPL'ed copyright holders can sue you for copyright violations.
but this is not really a problem of the files being hosted. it is a problem, if you distribute these libraries and tell people they are safe (and the code is GPLv3, or whatelse)
Yves has made his decision, and he said to remove his code (http://lists.puredata.info/pipermail/pd-list/2010-12/084998.html), so
i interprete his statement as "please remove pidip/unauthorized from Pd-extended" and not as "please remove my code from sourceforge". even if it was the latter i'd ignore it, as yves has full access to the repository and can remove the code himself (which he did not do; instead he did something else: he changed the license in the repository, which (for me) implies that he still thinks the repository of some relevance)
now we need to make ours. I'm not touching pidip anymore, so I'm fine with it staying in pure-data SVN or not. unauthorized was GPL until a few days ago, so I think we should maintain a clean GPL fork in the pure-data SVN. That means removing the non-free unauthorized.
not at all. if you want to fork unauthorized, then do a fork, and remove the original code. i'd suggest forking it under the name "authorized" :-)