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

[Gabriel M. Beddingfield]

On Tue, 4 Aug 2009, Chris Cannam wrote:
>
> effectively copying it, but it seems like a _really_ murky area to me.
> Not one that I'd ever really considered.  It doesn't seem all that
> plausible, but do you think this view is widely accepted?

Yes, I think that it is widely accepted that this is a _really_ murky 
area.  :-)

In the case of *users*... I stand corrected.  Sorry for the noise. 
(Ralf: thanks for the challenge.)

WRT the OP, here's a couple of more relevent sections from the GPL FAQ... 
and even concedes the "murky" part....

http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#GPLInProprietarySystem
  -and-
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#GPLWrapper

In the case of the OP, the problem is that they were distributed 
together... as a whole.  They at least have to honor the GPL requirements 
for distributing the plugin binaries.  As for GPL-tainting the whole 
program, it has to be determined if they are interfaced "at arm's length."

<opinionating_the_murk>
Since we all know that LADSPA is a protocal that causes dynamic linking to 
object code, it seems clear that this is *not* at arms length.  But, I can 
see room for argument that LADSPA is an intermediate protocol (like 
text-based I/O, TCP/IP communication, morse code)... and that this makes 
it arms length.  So, I'm now back where we started.  :-P
</opinionating_the_murk>

Peace,
Gabriel