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

[Sampo Savolainen]

On Tue, 2009-08-04 at 10:42 -0500, Gabriel M. Beddingfield wrote:
> On Tue, 4 Aug 2009, Chris Cannam wrote:
> >>>
> >>> If your interpretation was correct, then I could require Cubase to be
> >>> GPL'd by writing a VST plugin for it and publishing it under the GPL.
> >>> This would obviously be absurd.  In real life, a court faced with a
> >>
> >> No, Steinburg wouldn't be held to the GPL... your user would.
> >
> > My _user_?  That can't be the case, the GPL only covers distribution.
> > Nick's interpretation was "same memory space => derived work",
> > implying that a host that loads a GPL'd plugin is a derived work of
> > that plugin, ergo Cubase is a derived work of my VST plugin -- which
> > is obviously absurd.
> >
> 
> Your user is the one doing the linking (via VST)... so they're the ones 
> making the violation.  You have to give special permission to do this:
> 
> http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#LinkingOverControlledInterface

As far as I understand it, the action of linking is not a violation.
Distributing the "linkage" might be a violation depending on the license
used.

For example:

I can modify a piece of GPL'd code to my hearts content, link it to my
proprietary code, use it for years, all without violating the GPL. A
violation would be if I distribute the combination as proprietary (non
GPL) software.

Comments? 


 Sampo