alt Hacker NewsThanks for the kind response!
> I’m also definitely not wanting to circumnavigate the GPL!
You are going to great lengths to make sure that SuperSonic (and thus scsynth) can be used by non-GPL code. You are explicitly advertising in the README:
> Your application code interacts only with the MIT-licensed client APIs and is not intended to be a derivative work of the GPL components.
https://github.com/samaaron/supersonic#license
Or in the LICENSE file:
> SuperSonic is deliberately designed with a strict execution boundary between the GPL-licensed audio engine and application-level code.
https://github.com/samaaron/supersonic/blob/2652a28eb6cb51a4...
What's the point of this if not circumventing the GPL?
---
Running scsynth (or a derived application) as a separate process and communicating via sockets should be fine, at least from a legal standpoint. This is what Sonic Pi resp. the native SuperSonic clients do.
The SuperSonic JS client, however, lives in the same process as the scsynth WASM module. The fact that the two modules communicate via OSC messages is not really relevant. They clearly form a single combined program and therefore must comply with the GPL.
I'm pretty sure the same applies to the Erlang module. According to the LICENSE file, the scsynth engine is implemented as a shared library that the client calls into. This would be a textbook case of a combined program.
I would ask you to change the licenses accordingly.
> You are going to great lengths to make sure that SuperSonic (and thus scsynth) can be used from non-GPL code
Sure because it’s my understanding that using a clearly documented protocol that doesn’t share internal data structures does not constitute a derivative work. I’m not trying to change anything rather make the boundary clear.
>They clearly form a single combined program and therefore must comply with the GPL.
I don’t think that this is necessarily the case - if the shape of the architectural boundary is the same as the networked OSC case then I think it’s very reasonable to argue that its aggregation and not derivative. I don’t believe the gpl actually states anything about process boundaries or linking mechanisms. Rather it’s generally the advice that a compiled work is derivative as it likely does share internal data structures etc.
I also don’t quite know what licenses you’re asking me to change. The parts of SuperSonic that derive from scsynth are clearly licensed gpl. The parts that are my copyright are clearly licensed MIT.
I’m really not trying to circumnavigate anything. I’m just trying to assert that calling gpl software over a clearly documented and formal boundary that does not share internal data structures doesn’t trigger the gpl - regardless of linking or process specifics. The issue is about copyright not implementation details.