On Tuesday 04 Aug 2009 09:10:21 Fons Adriaensen wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 04, 2009 at 08:33:22AM +0100, Nick Bailey wrote:
> > Well, calling it your own is out of order, but as long as they release
> > their source code as required by the GPL, then selling it is a Good Thing
> > (TM). I hope the LADs agree with me. I would certainly be delighted if my
> > GPL'd stuff (which isn't directly related to LAD) got sold. It would mean
> > more GPL'd applications.
>
> Two question arise:
>
> - Is a program that loads LADSPA plugins (at run time) a
> 'derived work' ? Note that anyone can create a 'clean'
> version of ladpsa.h, as some people did with the VST
> headers.
My understanding is "Yes". If it's linked, it's GPL'd. You can run a separate
process and communicate through sockets etc, that'd be separate. But AFAIK,
same memory space => derived work.
>
> - If an installer (run on the end user's machine)
> fetches the plugins from their official site, would
> this be 'distribution' ?
Ummm... I vote no :)
>
>
> My first guess would be no, no.
>
>
> Ciao,
_______________________________________________
Linux-audio-dev mailing list
Linux-audio-dev@email-addr-hidden
http://lists.linuxaudio.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-audio-dev
Received on Tue Aug 4 20:15:05 2009
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Tue Aug 04 2009 - 20:15:05 EEST