Re: [LAD] GPL Violation Alert! - update

On 5 Aug 2009, at 11:49, Sampo Savolainen wrote:

> Quoting "Steve Harris" <steve@email-addr-hidden>:
>
>> An update.
>>
>> I've been contacted by the company that sells this software, asking
>> for retrospective permission, or something along those lines.
>
> Hi,
>
> I wonder if we have received the same email? The email I got did not
> mention any specific license or even a type of license they would
> like. At least I don't think they were asking for the plugins under a
> non-GPL license. To me it sounded like they were making a proposal on
> how to become compliant with GPL.

That's right, it didn't mention licences.

>> I'm not going to grant it - I don't really think I can, the "SWH"
>> plugins represent the work of far too many people for me to feel
>> comfortable doing that, and it's not necessary anyway, as long as
>> they
>> stick by whatever the conditions of the licence may be. But, I don't
>> actually have a clear idea of what the GPL says should happen.
>
> GPL + plugins seems to be a really iffy combination. I myself find the
> plugin interface separating the host from the plugins sufficient. The
> linkage happens when the user acts to load the plugin. This runtime
> linkage is never distributed, distribution being where GPL viral
> clauses would kick in.

I agree.

> An hard-wired piece of software like Jamin on the other hand would be
> more tricky. In such a case it might be necessary for the proprietary
> host to be separately distributed from the plugins. Might. Who knows?
>
> This discussion does raise a good question about which license LADSPA
> and LV2 plugins should use. GPL might just be too viral and too
> restrictive.

At the least it seems like a specific mention that it's OK to load the
plugins into a proprietary host (if that's what you intend) is a good
idea.

>> 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. However, shipping them in one
>> package might be some sort of violation.
>
> I'm too much of a pragmatic to consider the amount of packages being
> delivered to be that relevant. It's like saying you can deliver
> weapons to embargoed countries as long as you keep the ammunition and
> hardware in different shipments.

Agreed.

- Steve
_______________________________________________
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 16:15:06 2009