Re: [LAD] GPL and plugins

On Mon, 2010-06-21 at 06:40 -0500, Gabriel M. Beddingfield wrote:
>
> On Mon, 21 Jun 2010, Victor Lazzarini wrote:
>
> > A simple question: can GPL plugins be loaded into non-free hosts?
> > This may appear a stupid question, but given the fact that non-free code
> > can't link to GPL binaries, what is the story with dynamic modules?
>
> This was discussed last year on this list, so it would be
> worthwhile searching the archives. (Yes, I know that
> searching LAD takes perseverence. :-))

Subject: Re: [LAD] GPL Violation Alert! - update
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 05 Aug 2009 09:24:19.0886 (UTC)
FILETIME=[82F1D4E0:01CA15AE]

http://www.google.de/#hl=de&source=hp&q=Re%3A+[LAD]+GPL+Violation+Alert!
+-+update&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&oq=&gs_rfai=&fp=605bfc997273a220

> According to the FSF,[1] the answer is no because it's
> dynamic linking. BTW, I'm pretty sure their answer is
> more black-and-white today than it was last year.
>
> However, isn't this the whole point of using plugins?? To
> allow this sort of thing? So, I think the FSF's opinion is
> still up for debate. In addition, I doubt most plugin
> authors will get upset with someone doing this.
>
> Things get less cloudy if the plugin author(s) give special
> permission for this (see, for example [2]).
>
> Chris is also right: This is not an end-user issue. This
> is a host author, plugin author, and software distributor
> issue.
>
> -gabriel
>
> [1] http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#NFUseGPLPlugins
> [2] http://gstreamer.freedesktop.org/documentation/licensing.html
> Down toward the end where it mentions Totem's exception
> for hosts, and again waaaay at the end where it mentions
> the FSF.

_______________________________________________
Linux-audio-dev mailing list
Linux-audio-dev@email-addr-hidden
http://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-dev
Received on Mon Jun 21 16:15:07 2010