[LAD] GPL Violation Alert! - update

[Bob Ham]

On Wed, 2009-08-05 at 10:02 +0100, Steve Harris wrote:

> 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 crazy thing is that if they shipped their host in one package, and  
> redistributed some LADPSA plugins (with source) in another then they  
> would not be violating the licence as far as I can see - both actions  
> are perfectly legitimate in isolation. However, shipping them in one  
> package might be some sort of violation.

I don't think they're in violation just by including the plugins with
their proprietary application.  I think that would most likely come
under the "aggregate" concept in the GPL, which was included to support
GNU/Linux distributions:

"In addition, mere aggregation of another work not based on the Program
with the Program (or with a work based on the Program) on a volume of a
storage or distribution medium does not bring the other work under the
scope of this License."

I think it could reasonably be argued that an automatic installer of
both the (separate) proprietary application and the plugins would
constitute an "aggregate" rather than a "derived work".


I think really, Beat Kangz just need to fall into line with the normal
obligations of a distributor; including a notice about the GPLd
software, an offer to provide the source code, etc.  I'd note that this
would just be limited to the aggregate (ie, the installer) as well.


-- 
Bob Ham <rah at bash.sh>

for (;;) { ++pancakes; }
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 197 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
URL: <http://lists.linuxaudio.org/pipermail/linux-audio-dev/attachments/20090805/07e39a46/attachment.pgp>