Re: [LAD] GPL Violation Alert! - update

On Wed, 2009-08-05 at 10:02 +0100, 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. However, shipping them in one
> package might be some sort of violation.

I don't think they're in violation just by including the plugins with
their proprietary application. I think that would most likely come
under the "aggregate" concept in the GPL, which was included to support
GNU/Linux distributions:

"In addition, mere aggregation of another work not based on the Program
with the Program (or with a work based on the Program) on a volume of a
storage or distribution medium does not bring the other work under the
scope of this License."

I think it could reasonably be argued that an automatic installer of
both the (separate) proprietary application and the plugins would
constitute an "aggregate" rather than a "derived work".

I think really, Beat Kangz just need to fall into line with the normal
obligations of a distributor; including a notice about the GPLd
software, an offer to provide the source code, etc. I'd note that this
would just be limited to the aggregate (ie, the installer) as well.

-- 
Bob Ham <rah@email-addr-hidden>
for (;;) { ++pancakes; }

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