4 Aug
2009
4 Aug
'09
1:37 p.m.
On Tue, 2009-08-04 at 10:10 +0200, Fons Adriaensen wrote:
On Tue, Aug 04, 2009 at 08:33:22AM +0100, Nick Bailey
wrote:
GPL crosses the plugin barrier if they live in the same address space
and call each other / share data, etc:
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#GPLPluginsInNF
However, you can add a license restriction to avoid this for a
particular interface (e.g. the LADSPA API):
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#LinkingOverControlledInterface
Either way, the user can't "violate the GPL" just by loading a plugin
(since the GPL is a copyright license). Distributing such a combination
in any way would, though.
Cheers,
-dr
Well, calling it your own is out of order, but as
long as they release their
source code as required by the GPL, then selling it is a Good Thing (TM). I
hope the LADs agree with me. I would certainly be delighted if my GPL'd stuff
(which isn't directly related to LAD) got sold. It would mean more GPL'd
applications.
Two question arise:
- Is a program that loads LADSPA plugins (at run time) a
'derived work' ? Note that anyone can create a 'clean'
version of ladpsa.h, as some people did with the VST
headers.