[LAD] GPL Violation Alert! - Sorry if this is a duplicate

[Chris Cannam]

On Tue, Aug 4, 2009 at 1:19 PM, Steve Harris<steve at plugin.org.uk> wrote:
> On 4 Aug 2009, at 13:15, Steve Harris wrote:
>>
>> I'm a but rusty on these issues, but my reading of the GPLv2 (many
>> years ago now) was that LADSPA plugins in it do not "infect" the host
>> with their licence.
>>
>> There used to be a clear distinction between runtime linking, and
>> loadtime linking.
>
> D'oh. I think I'm confusing the LGPL and the GPL too.

You are, but dynamic linkage with the GPL is a complete minefield as
well, because it really hinges on what might be considered a derived
work in copyright terms rather than on the content of the GPL.  (The
FSF has a position that I think is a convenient oversimplification,
which is that any dynamic loading forms a derived work.  Others
disagree -- Linus for example with his binary kernel modules.  The GPL
does contain a line about applicability "when you distribute the same
sections as part of a whole which is a work based on the Program", but
it basically seems to be the license ruling itself on whether it
applies or not, and I don't think it's the only possible authority for
that -- if there is no derived work in pure copyright terms, then it
doesn't make any difference what the GPL says about derived works.)


Chris