Re: [LAD] GPL Violation Alert! - Sorry if this is a duplicate

On Tue, 2009-08-04 at 10:10 +0200, 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.

GPL crosses the plugin barrier if they live in the same address space
and call each other / share data, etc:

http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#GPLPluginsInNF

However, you can add a license restriction to avoid this for a
particular interface (e.g. the LADSPA API):

http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#LinkingOverControlledInterface

Either way, the user can't "violate the GPL" just by loading a plugin
(since the GPL is a copyright license). Distributing such a combination
in any way would, though.

Cheers,

-dr

_______________________________________________
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 20:15:07 2009