Re: [LAD] GPL Violation Alert! - update

Hallo,
Steve Harris hat gesagt: // Steve Harris wrote:

> Consensus seems to be that they need to distribute code for the
> plugins they include, but whether they are allowed to ship the plugins
> is another question.
>
> The crazy thing is that if they shipped their host in one package, and
> redistributed some LADPSA plugins (with source) in another then they
> would not be violating the licence as far as I can see - both actions
> are perfectly legitimate in isolation.

Are they? See below.

> However, shipping them in one
> package might be some sort of violation.

According to the slightly skewed view of the FSF, even the former could be a
violation:
  
  If the program dynamically links plug-ins, and they make function calls to
  each other and share data structures, we believe they form a single program,
  which must be treated as an extension of both the main program and the
  plug-ins. This means that combination of the GPL-covered plug-in with the
  non-free main program would violate the GPL. However, you can resolve that
  legal problem by adding an exception to your plug-in's license, giving
  permission to link it with the non-free main program.

Quotint the GPL-FAQ. However applied to LADSPA this would mean, that
GPL-plug-ins are not allowed in commercial software *at all*, and this would
also be the case for e.g. Renoise, even when it doesn't ship the plugins, but
uses the system-wide installed plugins.

So if Beat Kangzs isn't allowed to load swh-plugins, then Renoise wouldn't be
allowed neither, as far as I understand it. And Renoise does load them, I just
checked. So we'd have another violation alert for Renoise. Happy hunting. :)

Ciao

-- 
Frank
_______________________________________________
Linux-audio-dev mailing list
Linux-audio-dev@email-addr-hidden
http://lists.linuxaudio.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-audio-dev