On Tue, 2009-08-04 at 10:42 -0500, Gabriel M. Beddingfield wrote:
> On Tue, 4 Aug 2009, Chris Cannam wrote:
> >>>
> >>> If your interpretation was correct, then I could require Cubase to be
> >>> GPL'd by writing a VST plugin for it and publishing it under the GPL.
> >>> This would obviously be absurd. In real life, a court faced with a
> >>
> >> No, Steinburg wouldn't be held to the GPL... your user would.
> >
> > My _user_? That can't be the case, the GPL only covers distribution.
> > Nick's interpretation was "same memory space => derived work",
> > implying that a host that loads a GPL'd plugin is a derived work of
> > that plugin, ergo Cubase is a derived work of my VST plugin -- which
> > is obviously absurd.
> >
>
> Your user is the one doing the linking (via VST)... so they're the ones
> making the violation. You have to give special permission to do this:
>
> http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#LinkingOverControlledInterface
As far as I understand it, the action of linking is not a violation.
Distributing the "linkage" might be a violation depending on the license
used.
For example:
I can modify a piece of GPL'd code to my hearts content, link it to my
proprietary code, use it for years, all without violating the GPL. A
violation would be if I distribute the combination as proprietary (non
GPL) software.
Comments?
Sampo
_______________________________________________
Linux-audio-dev mailing list
Linux-audio-dev@email-addr-hidden
http://lists.linuxaudio.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-audio-dev
Received on Wed Aug 5 00:15:05 2009
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Wed Aug 05 2009 - 00:15:06 EEST