Re: [LAD] GPL Violation Alert! - update

On Wed, Aug 5, 2009 at 5:49 AM, Sampo Savolainen<v2@email-addr-hidden> 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.

> 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.
>
>> 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.

Seems like LGPL might have been a better choice, depending on your intentions.

But law is often a matter of interpretation. As copyright holder,
your interpretation is more relevant than that of FSF. (They have no
direct standing in the case.)

Perhaps a simple additional statement that you "permit aggregation and
use with proprietary hosts" would suffice. FSF might not like it, but
it's not their code.

> 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.

I don't know. Maybe LGPL or BSD?

>> 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 copyright holder is the only one with standing to enforce either
interpretation. You decide.

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