Diemo Schwarz

what experience do people have with open source licenses such as GPL 

 or one of the creative commons licenses 

I want to release some patches I wrote as free software (libre, not just 

for free), but would want to avoid the (probably minimal) risk of 

                                ...Diemo

IRCAM - Centre Pompidou -- 1, place Igor-Stravinsky, 75004 Paris, France

Phone +33-1-4478-4879 -- Fax +33-1-4478-1540

what experience do people have with open source licenses such as GPL 
[http://www.fsf.org/] or one of the creative commons licenses 
[http://creativecommons.org/] for Max patches?

I want to release some patches I wrote as free software (libre, not just 
for free), but would want to avoid the (probably minimal) risk of 
commercial abuse.

-- 
Diemo Schwarz, PhD  --  http://www.ircam.fr/anasyn/schwarz
Real-Time Applications Team  --  http://www.ircam.fr/equipes/temps-reel
IRCAM - Centre Pompidou  --  1, place Igor-Stravinsky, 75004 Paris, France
Phone +33-1-4478-4879  --  Fax +33-1-4478-1540


free-open-source-license-for-patches

What means "commercial abuse"? Both the GPL and many (though not all)

of the creative commons licenses explicitly permit commercial

modification/distribution/sale of the code, as long as changes are

returned to the creators of the patches. The idea is that you get free

code improvements in return for others' use of your software. The only

"abuse" that can arise with the GPL is someone distributing (not just

using) modified copies of your software without giving you the

In practice, I have released every max patch I have ever gotten to a

distributable state under the GPL or free-er licenses, and have never

gotten any modifications back, and only gotten one bug report. (Maybe I

just write bug-free software :?) I have also never seen anyone but

people I know use my patches. Probably has something to do with the

fact that in general it is easier, and certainly more satisfying, to

write your own patches than to adapt others' for one's personal artistic

That said, I have learned a lot from seeing others' code. Why restrict

it? It seems to me that it is perhaps somewhat presumptuous for most of

us Maxers to place any kind of license encumbrance on our work. It is,

quite likely, not that special as software, and much more important in

What means "commercial abuse"?  Both the GPL and many (though not all)
of the creative commons licenses explicitly permit commercial
modification/distribution/sale of the code, as long as changes are
returned to the creators of the patches.  The idea is that you get free
code improvements in return for others' use of your software.  The only
"abuse" that can arise with the GPL is someone distributing (not just
using) modified copies of your software without giving you the
modifications.

In practice, I have released every max patch I have ever gotten to a
distributable state under the GPL or free-er licenses, and have never
gotten any modifications back, and only gotten one bug report.  (Maybe I
just write bug-free software :?)  I have also never seen anyone but
people I know use my patches.  Probably has something to do with the
fact that in general it is easier, and certainly more satisfying, to
write your own patches than to adapt others' for one's personal artistic
endeavors.

That said, I have learned a lot from seeing others' code.  Why restrict
it?  It seems to me that it is perhaps somewhat presumptuous for most of
us Maxers to place any kind of license encumbrance on our work.  It is,
quite likely, not that special as software, and much more important in
how and where you use it.

As far as I understand, if you are to permit others to use the 

software with Max I am not sure if you can use GPL at all. I believe 

you instead will have to use GNU LGPL. Quoting "Why you shouldn't 

use the Library GPL for your next library":

The GNU Project has two principal licenses to use for libraries. One 

is the GNU Library GPL; the other is the ordinary GNU GPL. The choice 

of license makes a big difference: using the Library GPL permits use 

of the library in proprietary programs; using the ordinary GPL for a 

library makes it available only for free programs.

http://www.gnu.org/licenses/why-not-lgpl.html

For this reason it is difficult to port Pd code to Max (GNU GPL), 

while it is possible to port Csound opcodes (GNU LGPL). My own 

objects and Jamoma are both released as GNU LGPL. I don't think I 

have seen my own externals embedded in standalones that are sold more 

than twice, one of the times by permission and licensed differently. 

The main advantages with open source objects is that they might stay 

alive even if the original developer leave the community. Also they 

might provide useful resources for others that want not only to use 

them but also study the construction. This has been really useful for 

myself when trying to figure out how to make externals coded in C. 

Finally I feel that I have gained so much from others sharing their 

expertise and work that I like to be able to contribute something in 

return to the community. Of course I understand that the amount of 

work and financial situations might be different for others, and I 

don't expect or demand others to do the same. I have been drinking a 

lot of governmental-sponsored coffee, as NN used to say... ;-)

As far as I understand, if you are to permit others to use the  
software with Max I am not sure if you can use GPL at all. I believe  
you instead will have to use GNU LGPL.  Quoting "Why you shouldn't  
use the Library GPL for your next library":

The GNU Project has two principal licenses to use for libraries. One  
is the GNU Library GPL; the other is the ordinary GNU GPL. The choice  
of license makes a big difference: using the Library GPL permits use  
of the library in proprietary programs; using the ordinary GPL for a  
library makes it available only for free programs.

For this reason it is difficult to port Pd code to Max (GNU GPL),  
while it is possible to port Csound opcodes (GNU LGPL). My own  
objects and Jamoma are both released as GNU LGPL. I don't think I  
have seen my own externals embedded in standalones that are sold more  
than twice, one of the times by permission and licensed differently.  
The main advantages with open source objects is that they might stay  
alive even if the original developer leave the community. Also they  
might provide useful resources for others that want not only to use  
them but also study the construction. This has been really useful for  
myself when trying to figure out how to make externals coded in C.  
Finally I feel that I have gained so much from others sharing their  
expertise and work that I like to be able to contribute something in  
return to the community. Of course I understand that the amount of  
work and financial situations might be different for others, and I  
don't expect or demand others to do the same. I have been drinking a  
lot of governmental-sponsored coffee, as NN used to say...  ;-)

with "commercial abuse" I meant the possibility for someone else to sell 

binary versions of Max patches. Thus, the "abuse" is not from the point 

of view of the license, which expressly allows it, as you said, but from 

I wouldn't want someone taking whole patches, with lots of work in them, 

and wrapping them up in a standalone or a VST plugin, and selling them 

for money. The GPL only stipulates that you distribute the source code, 

i.e. the Max patch, with it and the text of the license.

In short, this possibility is legally covered by the license, but I 

don't like it. (Redistributing binaries for free would be swell, of 

course, as would be using, tweaking, ripping apart, reusing parts, and 

For software, the GPL de-facto makes this binary redistribution for 

money highly unlikely for one simple reason: Compilers exist as free 

software, so anyone (with the necessary skills) can recreate the binary 

and distribute if for free, so why would anyone else pay money for the 

same thing? (Charging money for that _service_ would of course be fine, 

In our case, the "compiler" is Max and is not free, in neither of the 

two senses, and less people own it, so binary distribution to the 

Max-less becomes more attractive. (Again, if it's for free I would even 

But maybe I'm just being paranaoid, maybe it never happens at all and I 

shouldn't bother. That's why I asked for your experiences.

I must mention the creative commons BY-NC-SA license here 

http://creativecommons.org/about/licenses/meet-the-licenses

says that use, modifications and redistribution is allowed when the 

author is acknowledged (BY attribution), it is only redistributed for 

free (Non Commercial), and the patch and modifications are redistributed 

under the same license (Share Alike). To prevent misunderstandings, of 

course you would be allowed to sell music you make with the patches...

with "commercial abuse" I meant the possibility for someone else to sell 
binary versions of Max patches.  Thus, the "abuse" is not from the point 
of view of the license, which expressly allows it, as you said, but from 
my personal practical point of view:

I wouldn't want someone taking whole patches, with lots of work in them, 
and wrapping them up in a standalone or a VST plugin, and selling them 
for money.  The GPL only stipulates that you distribute the source code, 
i.e. the Max patch, with it and the text of the license.

In short, this possibility is legally covered by the license, but I 
don't like it.  (Redistributing binaries for free would be swell, of 
course, as would be using, tweaking, ripping apart, reusing parts, and 
redistributing the patches.)

For software, the GPL de-facto makes this binary redistribution for 
money highly unlikely for one simple reason:  Compilers exist as free 
software, so anyone (with the necessary skills) can recreate the binary 
and distribute if for free, so why would anyone else pay money for the 
same thing?  (Charging money for that _service_ would of course be fine, 
but not distribution.)

In our case, the "compiler" is Max and is not free, in neither of the 
two senses, and less people own it, so binary distribution to the 
Max-less becomes more attractive.  (Again, if it's for free I would even 
appreciate it.)

But maybe I'm just being paranaoid, maybe it never happens at all and I 
shouldn't bother.  That's why I asked for your experiences.

I must mention the creative commons BY-NC-SA license here 
  [http://creativecommons.org/about/licenses/meet-the-licenses ], which 
says that use, modifications and redistribution is allowed when the 
author is acknowledged (BY attribution), it is only redistributed for 
free (Non Commercial), and the patch and modifications are redistributed 
under the same license (Share Alike).  To prevent misunderstandings, of 
course you would be allowed to sell music you make with the patches...

> Finally I feel that I have gained so much from others sharing their 

> expertise and work that I like to be able to contribute something in 

> return to the community. Of course I understand that the amount of 

> work and financial situations might be different for others, and I 

> don't expect or demand others to do the same. I have been drinking a 

> lot of governmental-sponsored coffee, as NN used to say... ;-)

myself i prefer creative-commons-attribute:non-

commercial over GPL mainly for two reasons, CC 

does not come with a several pages long contract, 

and has the option not to allow commercial use.

it simply fits better to my personal philosophy.

the main question which is cmtained in all these 

discussions is "how to make sure that noone 

steals your work to gain profit from your ideas".

in capitalism the assholes which own the money

will always gain profit from your work and your 

ideas, no matter if you are employed, self-employed, 

and if you do not trust karl marx and 110, try to 

find me ONE example where this isnt true.

even anti-capitalistic rallies, ciritical books, 

internet discussions about the future society or

illegal graffiti writing makes the companies profit.

what would you do if microsoft steals your supercool

patch for mangling audio in realtime tomorrow?

on this planet you have to pay for drinking water!

you should be danmed happy that you may breathe

without paying for the air, so do not complain 

about someone stealing your open source software.

just be happy that the whole idea behind free 

software (and this includes "free sofwtare" as defined

in open source theories as well as CC or freeware

and shareware licensed code) might help a bit to 

the more we share with _each other_, the less _we_,

(4*55) = (still slower than my new ferrari)

> Finally I feel that I have gained so much from others sharing their  
> expertise and work that I like to be able to contribute something in  
> return to the community. Of course I understand that the amount of  
> work and financial situations might be different for others, and I  
> don't expect or demand others to do the same. I have been drinking a  
> lot of governmental-sponsored coffee, as NN used to say...  ;-)
>
> Best,
> Trond

myself i prefer creative-commons-attribute:non-
commercial over GPL mainly for two reasons, CC 
does not come with a several pages long contract, 
and has the option not to allow commercial use.
it simply fits better to my personal philosophy.

the main question which is cmtained in all these 
discussions is "how to make sure that noone 
steals your work to gain profit from your ideas".

in capitalism the assholes which own the money
will always gain profit from your work and your 
ideas, no matter if you are employed, self-employed, 
or unemployed.

and if you do not trust karl marx and 110, try to 
find me ONE example where this isnt true.
even anti-capitalistic rallies, ciritical books, 
internet discussions about the future society or
illegal graffiti writing makes the companies profit.

what would you do if microsoft steals your supercool
patch for mangling audio in realtime tomorrow?

on this planet you have to pay for drinking water!
you should be danmed happy that you may breathe
without paying for the air, so do not complain 
about someone stealing your open source software.

just be happy that the whole idea behind free 
software (and this includes "free sofwtare" as defined
in open source theories as well as CC or freeware
and shareware licensed code) might help a bit to 
fight against their profit ideology.

the more we share with _each other_, the less _we_,
or even _others_, depend on _them_.

(4*55) = (still slower than my new ferrari)


On 23-Mar-2006, at 10:08, Diemo Schwarz wrote:

> is Max and is not free, in neither of the two senses,

The interpreter, Max Runtime, *is* free. At least in one sense.

There are problems with the GPL free beer/free speech dichotomy I 

don't want to have to go into here, so let's just say it doesn't cost 

Depending upon whether your patches provide services that people 

would be prepared to pay money for, your concerns may or may not be 

justified. And the more people are aware that they can get your 

patches from you for free the less likely they are to pay money to 

It's not impossible for some sleaze to make a quick buck by 

redistributing your work to the unsuspecting. Frankly, I'm not sure 

that any license, be it LGPL, GPL, or whatever, is going to make a 

The main advantage of the GPL family is that they give a precise 

definition of rights to modify ("create derivative works" in c'right 

parlance). However, for many Max patches a simple "Copyright 

. Permission granted herewith for non-commercial 

distribution." is probably good enough. Your mileage will vary, however.

Peter Castine | +--> Litter Power & Litter Bundle for Jitter

|....................................................

p@castine.de | iCE: Sequencing, Recording, and Interface Building

4-15@kagi.com |....................................................

There are problems with the GPL free beer/free speech dichotomy I  
don't want to have to go into here, so let's just say it doesn't cost  
money. And it's even supported!

Depending upon whether your patches provide services that people  
would be prepared to pay money for, your concerns may or may not be  
justified. And the more people are aware that they can get your  
patches from you for free the less likely they are to pay money to  
someone else for exactly the same thing.

It's not impossible for some sleaze to make a quick buck by  
redistributing your work to the unsuspecting. Frankly, I'm not sure  
that any license, be it LGPL, GPL, or whatever, is going to make a  
lot of difference to that aspect.

The main advantage of the GPL family is that they give a precise  
definition of rights to modify ("create derivative works" in c'right  
parlance). However, for many Max patches a simple "Copyright   
. Permission granted herewith for non-commercial  
distribution." is probably good enough. Your mileage will vary, however.

--------------    http://www.bek.no/~pcastine/Litter/    -------------
Peter Castine    |        +--> Litter Power & Litter Bundle for Jitter
                  |....................................................
p@castine.de     | iCE:  Sequencing, Recording, and Interface Building
pcastine@gmx.net |       for Max/MSP
pcastine@bek.no  | http://www.dspaudio.com/             Extremely cool
4-15@kagi.com    |....................................................
                  | home|chez nous|wir|i nostri  http://www.castine.de/

On Mar 23, 2006, at 5:17 AM, Roman Thilenius wrote:

> on this planet you have to pay for drinking water!

Of are you paying for the service of having it delivered?

or in bottles that travel from islands in the South Pacific.

Seems an appropriate analogy for looking at GPL.

On Mar 23, 2006, at 5:17 AM, Roman Thilenius wrote:
> on this planet you have to pay for drinking water!

Of are you paying for the service of having it delivered?
Either through pipes into your home
or in bottles that travel from islands in the South Pacific.

2 ways of looking at it.
Seems an appropriate analogy for looking at GPL.

-----
Nathan Wolek
nw@nathanwolek.com
http://www.nathanwolek.com


> The GNU Project has two principal licenses to use for libraries. One is

> the GNU Library GPL; the other is the ordinary GNU GPL. The choice of

> license makes a big difference: using the Library GPL permits use of the

> library in proprietary programs; using the ordinary GPL for a library

> makes it available only for free programs.

> For this reason it is difficult to port Pd code to Max (GNU GPL), while

> it is possible to port Csound opcodes (GNU LGPL).

I have heard this misconception about the GPL batted around here before

- but it just isn't true. There is no reason why you can't release Max

patches or objects under the GPL. It is the same idea as writing free

software for Windows. For the GPL, it doesn't matter if the free code

depends on a non-free library; there is only a problem if a non-free

The LGPL allows non-free software to link (in the compiler sense) to

your software without releasing their code. For example, if you write a

great new audio compression format that you want to be a standard, you

might release under the LGPL so that proprietary audio software makers

will be comfortable linking to your decompression library. With Max the

situation is reversed; it is your free code that depends on a non-free

Pd is actually released under the "Standard Improved BSD License", which

is less restrictive than either GPL or LGPL (it makes no restrictions

about others' use of your software of any kind, and only asks that

copyright information be retained in distributions).

One more note on licenses: the creative commons licenses, while

definitely nice, are not intended for software. see:

http://creativecommons.org/faq#Can_I_use_a_Creative_Commons_

Of course, the line between "software" and "artwork" gets blurry with Max.

free open source license for patches?